T. VANAMAMALAI AND OTHERS Vs. M. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are facing trial before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Nanguneri in C.C. 32 of 1987 for an offence under S. 504, I.P.C., on a private complaint instituted by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) THE facts briefly are : The respondent is the Manager in Sundaram Textiles, Nanguneri, which is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of textiles. The petitioners are employees in the above concern. There is a dispute between the Management and the employees. The averment in the complaint is that on 18th January, 1987 at about 12 noon; the first petitioner hung up a placard on a neem tree, in front of the respondent's premises, while petitioners 2 to 4 lifted the placard and gave it to him. The placard contained statements against the Management. The respondent, on reading the same, was provoked and immediately took his camera and took photographs of the placard and the recitals therein. The petitioners with the intention of insulting the respondent and thereby provoking him and the Management to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, had put up the above placard and therefore committed an offence punishable under S. 504, I.P.C. The complaint was taken on file as C.C. 32 of 1984 for an offence under S. 504, I.P.C., against the four petitioners. The above proceedings are sought to be quashed by the petitioners.

(3.) PER contra, Thiru N.T. Natarajan Learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the recitals in the placard were likely to provoke the workers belonging to I.N.T.U.C. Union into breaking the public peace or committing any other offence and, though the complaint did not indicate in so many words the above effect of the placard, still the same could be inferred, since an employee belonging to I.N.T.U C, was cited as a witness in the complaint and the Court before quashing proceedings, on the ground of absence of allegations should consider not only the averments in the complaint and in the sworn statement, but also the evidence that is likely to be forthcoming through the prosecution witnesses.