CRL OP/30016/2026 of Jaganathan Vs State by Inspector of Police on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.355 of 2025, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankagiri.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant and the other officers were discharging their duties, the petitioners and other accused prevented them from doing their work and also threatened them with dire consequence. Hence, the second respondent has lodged a complaint.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.166 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 132 of BNS ( 294(b) and 353 of IPC). On completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No. 355 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankagiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 132 of BNS. 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 pathway dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. It is stated that on 04.042025 the petitioner and other residents have raised an objection alleging that a private individual had obstructed a pathway. The petitioners further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankagiri by proceedings Pa.Mu.2676/2021/C dated 08.04.2022 had directed the Tahsildar, Sankagiri to clear and demarcate a cart- truck through S.Nos.61/1A1,1A2,2A1,2A2,13A3,13A4,16A and 16B. The petitioners submit that only to clear the pathway they have raised the objections. That apart they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further there is no specific allegations alleging that the petitioners scolded the defacto complainant and others used filthy language.

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. Hence, this Court finds that the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioners under Sections 296(b) and 132 of BNS , cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.355 of 2025, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankagiri is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN To.

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankagiri

2. The Inspector of Police Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMN CRL OP No. 30016 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.20004 and 20007 of 2026 14-10-2026