CRL OP/29891/2026 of Manju @ Manjunathan Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 407 of 2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, kalasapakkam, Tiurvannamalai District.

2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.174 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147,148,294(b), 324 . 506(ii) and 326 of IPC, alleging that there was some property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. At that juncture, there was a wordy quarrel between them and the accused scolded them with filthy language and also attacked them. On completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in CC No. 407 of 2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, kalasapakkam, Tiurvannamalai District., for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,294(b), 324 . 506(ii) and 326 of IPC, To quash the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. Admittedly, there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and they were close relatives. Further there is no specific allegations alleging that the petitioner scolded the defacto complainant and others used filthy language. On a perusal of records it is seen that in respect of the very same occurrence another complaint was lodged and the same is also pending in C.C.No.96 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur.

5. In order to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, 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 296(b) of BNS, as follows :- "296. 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 which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

6. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, 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 petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out.

7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 296(b) of BNS is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 296(b) of BNS. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS.

8. In order to attract the offence under Section 118(1) of BNS it is relevant to extract the Section 118(1) of BNS, as follows :- “118(1). Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means — Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.”

9. Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash both the proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur and CC No. 407 of 2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, kalasapakkam, Tiurvannamalai District.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur and CC No. 407 of 2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, kalasapakkam, Tiurvannamalai District. are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN To.

1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, kalasapakkam, Tiurvannamalai District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Polur

3. The Inspector of PoliceKadaladi Police Station, Kadaladi, Tiruvannamalai District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMN CRL OP No. 29891 of 2026 and Crl.M.p.No.19889 of 2026 14-10-2026