CRL OP(MD)/4948/2026 of M.A.Vijayanatarajan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Karuppayurani on 2 November 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.106 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, seeking to quash the final report, wherein he stands charged for the offences punishable under Section 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

2. The case of the prosecution, as could be culled out from the final report, is that on 19.03.2025 at about 07.30 a.m., while the defacto complainant was getting the land adjoining her property cleared and was giving instructions to the workers engaged therein, the petitioner/accused is said to have hurled abuses at the defacto complainant and her family members in a public place.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in S.No.13/11, measuring an extent of 28 cents, and that the defacto complainant had purchased the adjoining land in S.No.13/12, measuring an extent of 12

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 cents. Between the said two properties, there lies a public pathway having a width of 20 feet, and according to the petitioner, the defacto complainant attempted to encroach upon the said pathway.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on 07.03.2025 and, in the enquiry held on 10.03.2025, the son of the defacto complainant appeared and undertook to remove the encroachment put up on the public pathway. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8448 of 2025 seeking removal of the encroachment, and this Court, by order dated 27.03.2025, directed the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that, pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and a final order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, came to be passed against the defacto complainant on 30.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.30463 of 2025, and this Court, by order dated 29.10.2025, directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks. The appellate

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 authority, namely, the District Collector, by order dated 09.01.2026, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defacto complainant. It is in this background that the present complaint came to be lodged by the defacto complainant on 16.09.2025, alleging that the petitioner had abused her.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged words of abuse have not even been set out in the charge sheet. Placing reliance upon the statements of three witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, he would submit that none of them supports the version of the defacto complainant, and that the only other witness is the son of the defacto complainant himself. According to the learned counsel, the present criminal proceedings have been set in motion only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner for having initiated proceedings for removal of the encroachment.

7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 and the decision of this Court in S.Selvakumar Vs. State, through the Inspector of Police and anotherreported in 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 195.

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the property which was the subject matter of the encroachment proceedings is entirely different from the property in question, and therefore, the encroachment proceedings initiated against the defacto complainant cannot afford a defence to the petitioner to abuse and threaten the defacto complainant. He would further submit that specific overt acts have been attributed against the petitioner and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. A perusal of the First Information Report would indicate that the petitioner is alleged to have used abusive words; however, the alleged words have not been set out in the charge sheet. Even assuming that the words found in the FIR are abusive in nature, unless such words contain some lascivious element tending to arouse sexual thoughts or feelings, the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, which is pari materia with Section 294(b) of IPC, would not be attracted. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818, wherein, at paragraph Nos.8 and 9, it has been held as follows: “8. It has to be noted that in the instant 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.

9. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene 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 appellant-accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is made out.” The principle laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

11. Insofar as the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, is concerned, the very same verbal abuse is sought to be brought within the ambit of the said provision. The allegations are vague and omnibus in nature. Even according to the defacto complainant, the petitioner neither came armed with any weapon nor manhandled her. Further, the independent

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 witnesses, namely, L.W.3, L.W.5 and L.W.6, in their statements recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, have categorically stated that the petitioner did not threaten the defacto complainant or her family members.

12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the ingredients of the offences under Section 296(b) of BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, are not made out. Permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner would only amount to an abuse of process of law.

13. In the result, the charge sheet in C.C.No.106 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RJR

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2. The Inspector Of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR Pre-delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026 02.11.2026