CRL RC/366/2026 of MR.THAMILZHARASAN Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Po on 21 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application seeking discharge in C.C.No.254 of 2024, which is pending against the petitioner for the offences committed under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026

2. The gist of the prosecution's case is that the petitioner and other accused, on account of prior enmity, had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also committed the offence of criminal intimidation and that A1 had attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log. The respondent had filed a final report against A1 for the offences committed under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and as against A3 and A4 for the offences committed under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Mr.S.Sudhanthiran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations would not attract any of the offences against the petitioner, as the petitioner had not committed any obscene act or uttered any obscene words to attract Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and that the one under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also would not be carried out since there was no real threat and the allegations are vague.

4. Heard Mr.A.Amarnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

5. It is seen from the impugned final report and the materials placed in support of the final report that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had used filthy language to abuse the defacto

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026

complainant. It is well settled law that in order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused must have either uttered obscene words or acted obscenely in a public place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844 - N.S.Madhanagopal and Anr. Vs. K.Lalitha, has held as follows: "It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 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. 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 appellants accused annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC is made out." The above observation is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

6. Similarly, the allegation with regard to threat is vague and the materials in support of the allegation do not suggest that there was any real threat to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Noble Mohandass Vs. State, reported in Manu/TN/0026/1988, wherein,

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026

this Court has held as follows: "7. … Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually...”

7. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the order impugned, refusing to discharge the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is discharged and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. It is made clear that the above observations are only in respect of the present petitioner. The Trial Court shall deal with the other accused on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2714 and 2715 of 2026 are closed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026

To:

1. The Inspector of Police, Udaiyarpalayam PS, Ariyalur District. (Crime No.553 of 2020)

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayankondam.

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.366 of 2026 21-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )