Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13448 of 2024

1. Baskaran

2. Jayabalasubramanian

3. Elanbaruthi @ Eilamparithi

4. Karuppuswamy

... Petitioner/Accused No.2 to 5

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Inspector of Police,

Chatrakudi Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.31 of 2021. .... Respondent No.1 /

Complainant

2. Chellammal

.... Respondent No.2 /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the Charge sheet filed

in S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial

1/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and quash the same as illegal in so

far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Ramanujam,

For M/s. Gandhi Associates

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

Preface:

The present Criminal Original Petition is one such proceeding

wherein the petitioners, arrayed as A-2 to A-5 in S.T.C.No.963 of

2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, seek

quashment of the final report laid for the alleged offence under

Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of

Disfigurement) Act, 1959.

2. The controversy, though presented as one concerning

erection of a name board in Government poramboke land, essentially

raises a narrower but decisive legal issue, namely, whether the

prosecution materials, even if accepted in their entirety, attract the

statutory ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners.

2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

Case of the Prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the second

respondent, Chellammal, who was functioning as the Block

Development Officer of Bogalur Union Panchayat, had received a

communication from the President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat.

In the said communication, it was alleged that one K.R.Velu had

erected a name board in Government poramboke land comprised in

Survey No.287/1A, 1B, 2 situated at Muthuvayal Village. According

to the prosecution, the said board was removed by the authorities. It

is further alleged that on 06.02.2021, the said K.R.Velu, along with

the present petitioners, once again erected a name board in the same

place.

4. Based on the communication received from the Village

Panchayat President, the second respondent forwarded a complaint /

letter to the first respondent police requesting appropriate action. On

receipt of the same, the first respondent registered a case in Crime

No.31 of 2021 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 4-B

of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act,

1959.

3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

5. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police filed

a charge sheet against K.R.Velu and the present petitioners, arraying

the petitioners as A-2 to A-5. The final report was taken on file as

S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Paramakudi.

Grounds for Quash:

6. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that the

very reading of the FIR and the final report does not disclose the

commission of any offence under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu

Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. It is contended

that Section 4-A of the Act, on which the prosecution substantially

rests, applies only to a “local area” as defined in the statutory

Explanation. The said expression, according to the petitioners, is

confined to Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, and does not

extend to a Village Panchayat.

7. It is further contended that the alleged place of occurrence

is admittedly situated in Muthuvayal Village Panchayat and not

4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

within any Municipal Corporation or Municipality. Therefore, the

invocation of the penal provision itself is legally misconceived. The

petitioners also contend that no board was seized during

investigation. The alleged offending board has not been produced

before the Court. There is no mahazar evidencing seizure of the

board. There is no photograph, document, or material object to show

the nature, contents, size, location, or alleged objectionable

character of the board.

8. It is also contended that the FIR mentions the date of

occurrence as 06.02.2021, whereas the charge sheet refers to

02.02.2021. According to the petitioners, such discrepancy is not a

mere clerical irregularity, but demonstrates the casual and

mechanical manner in which the prosecution has been launched.

The petitioners further allege that the prosecution is politically

motivated. According to them, there are two groups in Muthuvayal

Village, one headed by the Village Panchayat President Ravi, and the

other headed by K.R.Velu / A-1. Since K.R.Velu had contested

against the said Panchayat President, the present case is alleged to

have been foisted at the instigation of the said President.

5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

9. On the above grounds, the petitioners contend that the

present case falls within the well-recognised categories laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

,

particularly the category relating to mala fide prosecution instituted

with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

Submissions on either side:

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the entire prosecution is an abuse of process of law.

According to him, even if the prosecution allegations are accepted at

their face value, the statutory ingredients of Section 4-B of the Tamil

Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 are not

made out. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the alleged

place of occurrence is a Village Panchayat. Section 4-A of the Act, by

its own Explanation, restricts its application to the City of Chennai,

City of Madurai, City of Coimbatore, any other Municipal

Corporation, or any Municipality constituted under the Tamil Nadu

District Municipalities Act, 1920.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

11. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, when

the alleged occurrence is admittedly not within a Municipal

Corporation or Municipality, the very prosecution under the said

provision is without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. It was

further submitted that the prosecution has failed to recover the

alleged board. No witness speaks about the contents of the board. No

witness states whether the board contained words, signs, visible

representations, advertisement, objectionable matter, or any material

capable of causing disfigurement within the meaning of the Act.

12. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that

merely stating that the accused erected a board would not attract the

offence. The law does not punish the mere existence of every board in

every place. The prosecution must show that the act complained of

falls within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute.

13. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in

Jeevanantham and others v. State and others

2

, to contend that

the nature of the offence and the manner in which proceedings are

2 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606

7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

initiated under the Act have to be strictly scrutinised. The learned

Senior Counsel fairly addressed the effect of Section 8 of the Act,

which declares that offences punishable under the Act shall be

deemed to be cognizable notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure. However, according to him, the question

of cognizability is different from the question whether the offence

itself is made out on facts.

14. The learned Senior Counsel concluded by submitting that

summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and

when the basic material is absent, compelling the petitioners to face

trial would be nothing but punishment by process.

15. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first

respondent police opposed the petition and submitted that the

disputed board had been erected in Government poramboke land

and that the authorities were justified in initiating criminal action. It

was submitted that the FIR was registered on the basis of the

communication received from the Block Development Officer, who in

8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

turn acted on the communication of the Village Panchayat President.

According to the prosecution, the petitioners, along with A-1, had re-

erected the board after the same had been removed by the

authorities.

16. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the

correctness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be decided in a

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioners must face

trial and establish their defence before the learned Magistrate. It was

further submitted that Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 makes offences under the

Act cognizable and, therefore, the registration of FIR cannot be

faulted on that ground.

17. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

adopted the submissions of the learned Government Advocate and

submitted that public property cannot be allowed to be encroached

upon or defaced under the guise of erecting a name board.

9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

18. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

19. The following point arises for consideration in this Criminal

Original Petition:

“Whether the final report in S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 on the file of

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, for the alleged offence

under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of

Disfigurement) Act, 1959, is liable to be quashed insofar as the

petitioners / A-2 to A-5 are concerned?”

Analysis:

20. Before adverting to the facts, it is necessary to remind

oneself of the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the

stage of quashment, this Court does not conduct a roving enquiry

into disputed questions of fact. It does not appreciate evidence as if

sitting in trial. However, where the uncontroverted allegations in the

FIR, complaint, final report and accompanying materials do not

10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court is not

powerless.

21. The celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

3

, has laid down illustrative

categories wherein criminal proceedings may be quashed. Among

them are cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence,

where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

for wreaking vengeance.

22. In the present case, the offence alleged is under Section 4-

B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act,

1959. The prosecution case is not one of wall writing, poster pasting,

objectionable advertisement, or visible disfigurement of a public

place in the conventional sense. The allegation is that a name board

was erected in a Government poramboke land in Muthuvayal Village.

31992 Supp(1) SCC 335

11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

23. The statutory provision relied upon by the petitioners

assumes significance. Section 4-A, as extracted in the petition,

prohibits, in any “local area”, the affixing, inscription or exhibition in

any place open to public view of any poster, effigy, bill, notice,

document, paper or other thing containing words, signs or visible

representations, or putting up or fixing of any board supported on or

attached to any post, standard, framework or other support upon or

over any land, building, wall or structure.

24. Explanation 1 to the provision defines “local area” for the

purpose of the section as the area within the limits of the City of

Chennai, the City of Madurai, the City of Coimbatore, any other

Municipal Corporation constituted under law, or any Municipality

constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

25. Explanation 2 defines “local authority” to mean the

Municipal Corporation of Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, any other

Municipal Corporation, or any Municipality constituted under the

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

26. The admitted prosecution case is that the alleged

occurrence took place at Muthuvayal Village, within a Village

Panchayat. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said place

falls within the limits of any Municipal Corporation or Municipality.

Thus, on the very face of the prosecution materials, the alleged place

of occurrence does not fall within the “local area” contemplated

under Section 4-A.

27. Penal provisions must be construed strictly. When the

legislature has chosen to define the territorial or local application of

a provision in a particular manner, the Court cannot expand the

definition by interpretative generosity so as to bring within the penal

net an area which the statutory Explanation does not include.

28. The prosecution cannot be permitted to contend that a

Village Panchayat should also be treated as a local area for the

purpose of Section 4-A, when the provision itself gives a specific and

exhaustive meaning to the expression “local area”. A criminal

13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

prosecution cannot be sustained on an expanded administrative

understanding of a penal statute.

29. The next aspect concerns the nature of the alleged board.

The entire case proceeds on the general assertion that the

petitioners, along with A-1, erected a name board. There is no

description of the board. There is no statement as to what was

written on the board. There is no indication whether it contained any

advertisement, political slogan, objectionable matter, or visible

representation amounting to disfigurement.

30. The Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement)

Act, 1959 is intended to prevent disfigurement of places open to

public view by unauthorised or objectionable writings, posters,

advertisements, boards and similar materials. The evil sought to be

prevented is disfigurement. Therefore, the prosecution must, at the

minimum, place before the Court materials showing that the act

alleged falls within the mischief of disfigurement contemplated by the

Act.

14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

31. In the present case, the respondent police have not

recovered the alleged board. No material object has been produced.

No seizure mahazar relating to the alleged board is relied upon. No

photograph of the alleged board has been placed as part of the

prosecution material. In the absence of the board itself or any

reliable description of its contents, the allegation remains vague and

skeletal.

32. The Court is conscious that at the stage of quashment,

meticulous proof is not required. But absence of proof is one thing;

absence of basic allegation constituting an offence is another. The

present case falls into the latter category.

33. A criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed on the

mere sentence that “the accused erected a board”. Such an allegation

may, in a given case, give rise to civil, revenue, panchayat or

administrative action, if the land is Government poramboke or if

there is unauthorised occupation. But every alleged erection of a

15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

board in a village land does not ipso facto become an offence under

the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.

34. The distinction between illegality under land

administration laws and criminality under a penal statute cannot be

blurred. If the allegation is one of encroachment upon Government

poramboke land, the competent authority may proceed in

accordance with the relevant revenue or panchayat laws. But the

present prosecution is not for encroachment. It is specifically for an

offence under the Prevention of Disfigurement Act. Therefore, the

ingredients of that Act alone must govern the sustainability of the

prosecution.

35. The prosecution also suffers from another infirmity. The

FIR states that the alleged occurrence took place on 06.02.2021,

whereas the charge sheet refers to 02.02.2021. A mere discrepancy

in date may not, in every case, be fatal. However, in a prosecution

resting on a single alleged act of erecting a board, the date of

occurrence is not an insignificant detail. It assumes relevance

16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

because the allegation is not supported by seizure, photograph,

contemporaneous mahazar or any independent material.

36. When the prosecution does not produce the alleged

offending board, does not describe the contents of the board, does

not place any material to show disfigurement, and also presents

inconsistent dates, the cumulative effect is that the final report lacks

the minimum legal foundation required to compel the petitioners to

undergo trial.

37. Section 8 of the the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of

Disfigurement) Act, 1959, has also been referred to. It declares that

notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, any offence punishable under the Act shall be deemed to

be a cognizable offence. This provision may answer the issue whether

the police can register an FIR for an offence under the Act. But it

does not answer the more fundamental issue whether the facts

alleged constitute an offence under the Act.

17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

38. Cognizability concerns the power of police investigation.

Constituent ingredients concern the existence of the offence itself. A

provision making an offence cognizable cannot create an offence

where the factual allegations do not satisfy the penal provision.

39. Therefore, even assuming that the police were not required

to obtain prior permission of the Magistrate for registration of the

FIR, the final report must still disclose the offence alleged. In the

present case, it does not.

40. The allegation of mala fide has also been pressed into

service. The petitioners contend that there are rival groups in

Muthuvayal Village, one headed by the Village Panchayat President

Ravi, and another headed by K.R.Velu / A-1. It is alleged that the

Panchayat President bore animosity against K.R.Velu as he had

contested against him in the election.

41. Ordinarily, allegations of political motive or village rivalry

are matters of evidence and cannot, by themselves, constitute a

18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

ground for quashing. However, when the prosecution itself lacks the

essential legal ingredients of the offence and the factual background

discloses a plausible element of rivalry, the Court is entitled to

examine whether continuation of the proceeding would amount to

abuse of process.

42. In the present case, this Court is not quashing the

proceeding solely on the ground of mala fide. The principal reason is

the absence of statutory ingredients and the inapplicability of the

provision to the admitted location of the occurrence. The allegation of

political rivalry only reinforces the conclusion that the criminal

process should not be permitted to be used as a weapon in a local

factional dispute.

43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.

Criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course. The

Magistrate, while taking cognizance, must be satisfied that the

19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

materials placed before the Court disclose the commission of the

offence alleged.

44. In final report quash matters, the Court is entitled to look

not merely at the FIR, but also at the materials collected during

investigation and the contents of the final report. If those materials,

taken at their highest, do not constitute the offence alleged, the

proceedings deserve to be quashed.

45. In FIR quash matters, the Court examines whether the FIR

itself discloses the ingredients of the offence. In final report quash

matters, the scrutiny is slightly broader, because the investigation

has concluded and the prosecution is expected to have collected the

material necessary to support its accusation. The present case is a

final report quash matter. Even after investigation, the prosecution

has failed to produce the alleged board or describe its contents.

46. The final report therefore suffers from a fundamental

defect. It does not demonstrate how the petitioners’ alleged act falls

20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

within Section 4-B of the Act. It does not establish that the place of

occurrence is a “local area” within the statutory meaning. It does not

set out the nature of disfigurement. It does not identify the offending

words, signs, visible representations or contents of the board. It does

not produce the board or any equivalent material.

47. In such circumstances, asking the petitioners to face trial

would amount to an empty formality. A trial cannot be ordered

merely to find out whether an offence may somehow emerge. The

criminal process must begin with a legally sustainable accusation.

Where such accusation is absent, the process itself becomes the

punishment. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the

continuation of S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 against the petitioners would

amount to abuse of process of Court and would not serve the ends of

justice.

48. Insofar as Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, is concerned, the provision

is attracted only when the act complained of takes place in a “local

21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

area” as defined in the Explanation. The admitted place of

occurrence is a Village Panchayat. The prosecution has not shown

that it falls within a Municipal Corporation or Municipality. Hence,

the foundational territorial ingredient is absent.

49. Insofar as the alleged act of putting up or fixing a board is

concerned, the prosecution has not stated the nature, contents,

words, signs, representations, or objectionable character of the

board. Hence, the substantive ingredient of disfigurement or

prohibited display is not made out.

50. Insofar as Section 4-B is concerned, the penal consequence

can arise only when the underlying prohibited act under the Act is

disclosed. Since the underlying statutory ingredients are not made

out, the penal invocation under Section 4-B cannot independently

survive.

51. Insofar as Section 8 of the Act is concerned, it only

declares offences under the Act to be cognizable. It does not dispense

22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

with the requirement that the alleged facts must constitute an

offence. Section 8 cannot cure the absence of ingredients under

Sections 4-A / 4-B. Thus, on a section-wise analysis, the prosecution

fails at the threshold.

Epilogue:

52. Criminal law is a solemn instrument of public justice. It is

not intended to be employed for settling village rivalries, political

contests or local administrative disagreements unless the act

complained of clearly falls within the four corners of a penal statute.

53. If a Government poramboke land is encroached upon, the

State is not helpless. If an unauthorised structure is raised, the

competent authority may remove it in accordance with law. If a

public place is defaced within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Open

Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, the offender may

certainly be prosecuted. But where the statute invoked does not

apply to the place of occurrence and where the prosecution does not

23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

even disclose the nature of the alleged offending board, continuation

of criminal proceedings would be legally oppressive.

54. The majesty of criminal justice lies not in permitting every

prosecution to proceed to trial, but in ensuring that only legally

sustainable prosecutions are allowed to consume the time of the

Court and the liberty of citizens.

55. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The

proceedings in S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, arising out of Crime No.31 of 2021,

are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners / A-2 to A-5 are

concerned.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Chatrakudi Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.13448 of 2024

01.06.2026

25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis