Madras High Court
CRL OP/29758/2026 of S.Ramkumar Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 29758 of 2026
and Crl.M.P.Nos.19807 & 19809 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012429872026}
S.Ramkumar
S/o Shanmugam,
No.164, Karpaga Veethi South Street,
Puliangudi,
Tenkasi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police Kiliyanur Police Station, Villupuram District.
2. R.Velayutham
S/o Rajamanickam,
Mariamman Kovil Street,
Then Siruvallur Village, Vanur Circle,
Villupuram District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the entire records pertaining to CC.No.178 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Vanur,Villupuram District and quash the same in so far as the Petitioner/A5 is concerned and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Couert may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
V.Vadivalagia Nambi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.178 of 2026, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, during the Samundeeswari Temple festival on 14.04.2016, the son of the de facto complainant, Gunasekaran, questioned certain persons for smoking cigarettes and engaging in objectionable activities near the temple. Consequently, the accused allegedly assaulted him with an iron pipe, kicked him, and abused him in filthy language. The petitioner herein is also alleged to have joined the other accused in the assault. Based on the complaint, the 1st respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.278 of 2016 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.
4. According to the petitioner, the accused No. 5 went abroad for his avocation and failed to appear before the trial court. Therefore, the case has been split up as against the petitioner herein in CC No. 178 of 2026. The other accused persons faced trial in CC No. 75 of 2023. After full-fledged trial, the trial court acquitted the other accused persons by judgment dated 27.07.2026.
5. On perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that all the witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges. Therefore, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, if the trial court is proceed against him, no purpose would be served, since all the witnesses turned hostile as against the other accused persons. In view of the above, petitioner herein is also entitled for the same relief.
6. Further, to attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :- "294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
7. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioner annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :- "To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case." The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners.
8. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:- “7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.”
9. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: "102.......... ...................
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Therefore, the impugned proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in CC.No.178 of 2026
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District, is hereby quashed.
11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To
1. The Inspector of Police Kiliyanur Police Station, Villupuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29758 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19807 & 19809 of 2026 14-10-2026