AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—The Petitioner R. Annalakshmi is the accused ''B'' Party in S.T.C. No. 2527 of 1988, on the file of the J.S.C.M.,
Nanguneri. The second Respondent Durai Pandian is the accused ''A'' Party in the same proceedings. These proceedings have been initiated by
R.1 against the Petitioner and R.2 for an offence u/s 160, I.P.C.
The Petitioner is the Headmistress of the Hindu High School, Kannamangalam, run by a private Educational Committee. The second
Respondent is a Physical Training teacher of the same school. It is stated in the petition that though the Petitioner had been recruited and appointed
as the Headmistress, she had not been paid salary on the ground that the post of Headmistress had not been sanctioned. It appears that she has
filed a writ petition before this Court which is still pending. One Appadurai is the Correspondent and Secretary of the School, and R.2 is the
brother of the said Appadurai. It is averred in the petition that R.2 had been committing several irregularities without properly attending school,
resulting in number of complaints being lodged by the Petitioner to the first Respondent, against the second Respondent. It is the contention of the
Petitioner that in view of the ill-will between herself and Appadurai, with a view to defame her, this prosecution had been initiated.
Though R.2 has not filed any petition to quash the proceedings against him, he has filed Crl.M.P. No. 2684 of 1989 to dispense with his
personal appearance in the trial Court, pending disposal of Crl.M.P. No. 9966 of 1988 filed by the Petitioner to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.
No. 2527 of 1987 as far as she is concerned.
Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has taken me through the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet filed in the case,
which are the only materials available. On the basis of these two documents, he would contend that the ingredients of the offence u/s 160, I.P.C.
are not disclosed and the continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of process of Court. 1 have heard Mr. T. Munirathin.a Naidu, learned
Government Advocate appearing for R.1.
To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the averments in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet may have to be
extracted. The first information report indicates that the Sub Inspector of Police who had visited the school on 4-7-1988 at or about 10 a.m., is the
first informant. The F.I.R. has been registered at 12 noon against the Petitioner and R.2. The averments in the F.I.R., translated into English, will
read as follows:
Today (4-7-1988) at 10 a.m. on information that classes were not conducted in the Hindu High School, Kannamngalam, due to dispute between
teachers. I proceeded to the venue. 1 found that the High School students had been sent away from school by the teachers who were available in
the school without conducting the classes. Some anti-social elements were found around the school and they were gazing at what was happening
inside. In this group some ladies were uttering words against the management. I questioned the Petitioner Annalakshmi as to why classes were not
conducted. Immediately, pointing to R-2 Duraipandian, who was standing nearby, she stated ""only this fellow is creating problems"". On hearing
this, R-2 Duraipandian retorted, stating ""Mind your tongue, you dog. How can you call me a fellow?"". A wordy altercation developed between
both the parties and since they would not cease to quarrel, I arrested both parties and released them later on bail. Persons who had gathered
outside were asked to go away and I directed the teachers to conduct classes, which was later done. Since the Petitioner and R-2 had quarrelled
and caused hardship to the students, I have Registered Crime No,226 of 1938 u/s 160, I.P.C.
The charge-sheet when translated into English will read as follows:
At 10 a.m. on 4-7-1988 in the playground of the Hindu High School, the Petitioner and the second Respondent quarrelled mutually using abusive
words. Hence, they are liable for an offence u/s 160, I.P.C.
To establish an offence u/s 160 I.P.C, three ingredients are necessary:
i) Two or more persons must indulge in a fight.
ii) Such fight must be in a public place, and
iii) That fight must disturb public peace. The narration of facts detailed above does not attract the first and third ingredients, even if it could be
stated that the Hindu High School is a public place.
What exactly is meant by ''fight'', is the subject matter of a few decisions, ''fight'' contemplated u/s 160 I.P.C. is certainly different from a mere
quarrel. The Law Lexicon by P, Ramanatha Aiyar defines ''fight'' as follows:
To strike or contend for victory, in the battle or in single combat; to attempt to defeat, subdue, or destroy an enemy, either by blows or weapons.
''Quarrel'' means exchange of angry utterances between two or more persons and not the mere use in an ordinary tone. Though it may need two
for a fight or a quarrel, the difference between fight and quarrel is obviously apparent. Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. in Ramakudumban and others 1950
1 M.L.J. 106 has observed that an affray required two sides fighting and that mere howling in pain will not be sufficient and that an answering
challenge or war-cry or even an active non-violent resistance must be present. Pandranga Row, J. in In Re: Muhammad Yusuf Sahib, , has
observed that to constitute an affray there must be a fight and it is not a fight when one side is aggressive and the other side is passive. It was
further observed thus:
Fighting connotes necessarily a contest or straggle for mastery between two or more persons against one another. A struggle or a contest
necessarily implies that there are two sides each of which is trying to obtain mastery, so that unless there is some violence offered or threatened
against one another, there could be no fight but only a mere assault or beating.
In AIR 1937 425 (Oudh) , it has been observed:
The offence of affray, as defined in Section 159, Penal Code, postulates the commission of a definite assault or a breach of the peace ; mere
quarrelling or abusing in a street without exchange of blows is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 159.
In Ganesh Das v. Emperor 30 Cri. L.J. 571, the Lahore High Court has held that Section 159 I.P.C. postulates the commission of a definite
assault or breach of the peace and mere quarrel without exchange of blows will not attract the ingredients of affray''. Similarly, the Allahabad High
Court Sheoraj Singh v. The State 1978 Cri. L.J. NOC 84 has observed that the offence of ''affray'' as defined in Section 159 I.P.C. postulates the
commission of a definite assault or a breach of of the peace and that mere quarrelling or abusing in a public place without exchange, of blows is not
sufficient to attract the application of Section 160 I.P.C.
On the language of the section and the decided case law, I am of the firm view that in the instant case, the ingredients of the offence of ''affray''
are not attracted on the materials placed before Court, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed as against the Petitioner. This petition is
allowed and the proceedings are accordingly quashed as against the Petitioner.
Though R.2 has not taken out an application to quash the proceedings as against him and has been satisfied with the prayer to dispense with his
appearance in the trial Court till a decision is taken in the petition filed by the Petitioner, I hold that the proceedings against R.2 has also to be
quashed on the same parity of reasoning. It is open to this Court, if it is found that the proceedings are not legally maintainable, to quash the same
as against the accused who have not chosen to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Inherent jurisdiction, saved u/s 482 Cr..P.C, extends
to prevent the abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings against the Petitioner and P.2 in S.T.C. No. 2527 of 1988 on the file of the J.S.C.M., Nanguneri,
are quashed.