Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 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.19686 of 2024

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.12124 and 12126 of 2024

1.Ilambaruthi @ Elamparithi

2.Rajeswaran

... Petitioner/Accused No.2 & 3

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Inspector of Police,

Chatrakudi Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.210 of 2020. .... 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.254 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial

1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 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

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records

relating to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022, pending on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, and to quash

the same as against the petitioners.

2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is invoked by the

petitioners, who are arrayed as A-2 and A-3 in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022

on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. The

petitioners seek quashment of the final report laid against them for

the alleged offences under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 4-A(1)(a) of

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

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the prosecution, even

if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the basic ingredients of

either of the offences alleged. Their principal contention is that

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

Disfigurement) Act, 1959, is attracted only to “local areas” defined

under the said provision, namely Municipal Corporations and

Municipalities, and cannot be mechanically extended to a village

panchayat area. The second limb of attack is that the allegation of

criminal intimidation is bald, vague and bereft of the essential

ingredient of alarm.

Case of the Prosecution:

4. The second respondent / de facto complainant is stated to

be the Block Development Officer of Bogalur Panchayat Union.

According to the prosecution, she received a communication from the

President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat alleging that one K.R.Velu

had erected a name board on Government poramboke land situated

at Muthuvayal Village on 30.07.2020 and that the said board was

removed by the authorities.

3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

5. It is further alleged that on 24.08.2020, the said K.R.Velu,

along with the present petitioners, once again erected a name board

in the Government poramboke land. It is also alleged that the

President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat was threatened with dire

consequences. Based on the letter said to have been sent by the

Panchayat President, the second respondent forwarded a

communication to the first respondent police requesting action.

Thereupon, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.210 of

2020 for the offences under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 4-A(1)(a)

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

1959.

6. After completion of investigation, the first respondent police

filed a final report, which was taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.254 of

2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, as against

K.R.Velu and the present petitioners.

4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

Grounds for Quash:

7. The petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings primarily

on the following grounds:

7.1. Firstly, Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, applies only to the “local

area” defined in Explanation I to Section 4-A. The said Explanation

restricts the operation of Section 4-A to the cities of Chennai,

Madurai and Coimbatore, any other Municipal Corporation, and any

Municipality constituted under the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920. The place of alleged occurrence is

admittedly Muthuvayal Village Panchayat, which is neither a

Municipal Corporation nor a Municipality. Therefore, according to

the petitioners, Section 4-A cannot be invoked in respect of an

alleged act committed in a village panchayat.

7.2. Secondly, the allegation under Section 506 IPC is wholly

vague. There is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners. The

final report does not disclose the words allegedly uttered, the nature

5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

of threat, the person to whom the threat was directly administered,

or the manner in which such threat caused alarm.

7.3. Thirdly, the complaint was not directly lodged by the

alleged person threatened. The allegation is routed through a letter

from the Panchayat President to the Block Development Officer, and

thereafter from the Block Development Officer to the police. Such

delayed and indirect narration, according to the petitioners, does not

satisfy the statutory requirement of criminal intimidation.

7.4. Fourthly, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at

its face value, the ingredients of Section 506 IPC and Section 4-A(1)

(a) of the Act are not made out. Hence, the continuation of the

prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court.

7.5. The petitioners rely upon the principles laid down in State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, and the decision of this Court in

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

Jeevanantham and others v. State and others ,

2

, to contend that

the final report deserves to be quashed.

Arguments on either side:

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that the very foundation of the prosecution is legally unsustainable.

It was contended that Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, cannot be applied to a

village panchayat area.

9. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to

Explanation I to Section 4-A, which defines “local area” as the area

within the limits of the City of Chennai, the City of Madurai, the City

of Coimbatore, any other Municipal Corporation, or any Municipality

constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

10. It was submitted that a village panchayat is conspicuously

absent from the statutory definition. Therefore, the legislature having

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

7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

consciously restricted the operation of Section 4-A to Municipal

Corporations and Municipalities, the police cannot enlarge the scope

of the provision by including panchayat areas.

11. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation

of erection of a name board, even if taken as true, does not fall

within the mischief of Section 4-A(1)(a), particularly when the alleged

place is situated in a village panchayat.

12. As regards Section 506 IPC, it was contended that mere

use of the expression “threatened with dire consequences” would not

constitute criminal intimidation. The final report does not disclose

any real threat intended to cause alarm. There is no material to show

that the alleged threat created fear in the mind of the person

threatened.

13. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution is

maliciously instituted and is squarely covered by the illustrative

8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

3

, particularly where

the allegations do not constitute any offence even if taken at their

face value, and where the proceedings are manifestly attended with

mala fides.

14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the

petitioners, along with the other accused, had erected a name board

on Government poramboke land despite the earlier removal of the

board by the authorities. It was submitted that such conduct would

disclose defiance of lawful authority and would prima facie attract

the provisions invoked by the prosecution.

15. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that

the question whether the petitioners had threatened the Panchayat

President and whether such threat amounted to criminal

intimidation are matters to be tested only during trial. It was

therefore contended that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction

31992 Supp(1) SCC 335

9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

under Section 528 BNSS, ought not to undertake a meticulous

appreciation of facts or embark upon an enquiry as to the sufficiency

of evidence.

16. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

17. The point that arises for consideration is whether the final

report in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022, insofar as it relates to the petitioners

/ A-2 and A-3, discloses the essential ingredients of the offences

under Section 506 IPC and Section 4-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open

Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, and whether

continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of

Court?

10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

Governing Legal Principles:

18. The power of quashment is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. However, where the

allegations in the final report, even if accepted in their entirety, do

not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court would be justified

in interdicting the criminal proceedings.

19. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

4

, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has illustratively catalogued circumstances in which criminal

proceedings may be quashed. One such category is where the

allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value,

do not prima facie constitute any offence. Another category is where

the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted

maliciously with an ulterior motive.

20. In final report quash matters, the Court does not conduct a

roving enquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations. However, the

Court is duty-bound to examine whether the statutory ingredients of

41992 Supp(1) SCC 335

11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

the alleged offences are disclosed from the materials collected by the

prosecution.

Analysis:

21. Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of

Disfigurement) Act, 1959, prohibits, notwithstanding anything

contained in Sections 3, 3-A or 4 or any other provision of the Act,

the affixture, inscription or exhibition of posters, effigies, bills,

notices, documents, papers or other things containing words, signs

or visible representations in any place open to public view in any

“local area”.

22. Clause (b) of Section 4-A(1) further prohibits putting up or

fixing any thatty board or board supported on or attached to any

post, pole, standard, framework or other support wholly or in part

upon or over any land, building, wall or structure.

12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

23. The significance of the expression “local area” cannot be

ignored. Explanation I to Section 4-A specifically defines “local area”

to mean the area within the limits of Chennai City, Madurai City,

Coimbatore City, any other Municipal Corporation, or any

Municipality constituted under the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920.

24. Explanation II 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.

25. Thus, the statutory definition is exhaustive and not

illustrative. A village panchayat does not find place in either

Explanation I or Explanation II. When the legislature has specifically

identified the territorial areas to which the provision applies, the

Court cannot, by interpretative expansion, include village

panchayats within the sweep of the provision.

13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

26. In the present case, the prosecution itself proceeds on the

footing that the alleged name board was erected in Government

poramboke land situated at Muthuvayal Village, within the

jurisdiction of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat. It is not the

prosecution case that the place of occurrence falls within a

Municipality or Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the very invocation

of Section 4-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of

Disfigurement) Act, 1959, is legally unsustainable.

27. The decision in Jeevanantham and others v. State and

others,

5

, also supports the proposition that Section 4-A cannot be

mechanically invoked in respect of areas not covered by the statutory

definition of “local area”.

28. Once the territorial applicability of the penal provision itself

is absent, the prosecution under Section 4-A cannot be permitted to

continue merely on the allegation that a board was erected in

Government poramboke land. If the act complained of amounts to

encroachment or unauthorised occupation of Government land, the

5 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606

14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

competent authority may proceed in accordance with the appropriate

revenue or local body law. But the penal provision under Section 4-A

cannot be pressed into service in a village panchayat area.

29. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal

intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined under

Section 503 IPC. To constitute criminal intimidation, there must be a

threat to cause injury to the person, reputation or property of

another, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that

person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to

do any act which he is legally entitled to do. Thus, the essential

ingredients are:

(i) there must be a threat;

(ii) the threat must be to cause injury to person, reputation or

property;

(iii) the threat must be made with intent to cause alarm; and

(iv) such threat must be real and not a mere casual expression.

15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

30. In the present case, the final report merely alleges that the

petitioners threatened the Panchayat President with dire

consequences. The actual words said to have been uttered are not

stated. The specific role of each petitioner is not set out. There is no

averment as to how the alleged threat caused alarm to the Panchayat

President.

31. The complaint was not given directly by the person

allegedly threatened. The Panchayat President is said to have sent a

letter to the second respondent / Block Development Officer, who in

turn forwarded a letter to the police. The allegation of threat is thus

indirect and general.

32. The expression “threatened with dire consequences”,

without particulars, cannot by itself constitute criminal intimidation.

Criminal law cannot be set in motion on vague, omnibus and

formulaic allegations. The offence under Section 506 IPC requires

something more than a general allegation of threat.

16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

33. The final report does not disclose that the alleged threat

was of such a nature as to cause alarm in the mind of the person

threatened. It also does not disclose that the petitioners intended to

compel the Panchayat President to do or omit to do any act.

Therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not made out

against the petitioners.

34. The petitioners are arrayed as A-2 and A-3. The gravamen

of the prosecution case appears to be directed primarily against A-1,

namely K.R.Velu, who is said to have erected the name board initially

on 23.07.2020 and again on 24.08.2020. As against the present

petitioners, the final report does not disclose any specific,

independent and overt act, except stating that they were also present

or associated with the alleged erection of the board. Criminal liability

cannot be fastened on vague association unless the statute creates

such liability or the materials disclose common intention or active

participation.

17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

35. In the absence of legally admissible and specific allegations

satisfying the ingredients of the offences invoked, compelling the

petitioners to face trial would only result in needless harassment.

36. In a final report quash matter, the Court is entitled to

examine whether the materials collected during investigation disclose

the commission of the offences alleged. Such scrutiny is not an

appreciation of evidence, but a jurisdictional examination of the legal

sustainability of the prosecution.

37. As regards Section 4-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

Act, the prosecution fails on the threshold requirement of territorial

applicability. The alleged occurrence is in a village panchayat, which

is outside the statutory meaning of “local area”.

38. As regards Section 506 IPC, the prosecution fails on the

ingredient of criminal intimidation. There is no specific threat, no

particulars of words uttered, no material showing alarm, and no

specific overt act attributable to the petitioners. Therefore, even if the

18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

prosecution case is taken at its highest, the offences alleged are not

made out.

39. The present case squarely falls within the category where

the allegations made in the final report, even if taken at face value,

do not constitute the offences alleged. The continuation of

prosecution in such circumstances would not advance the cause of

justice. On the contrary, it would amount to permitting a criminal

trial to proceed where the statutory foundation itself is absent. The

inherent power of this Court exists precisely to prevent such abuse of

process and to secure the ends of justice.

Epilogue:

40. The State is not remediless if there has been any

unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon Government

poramboke land. The competent authorities may take appropriate

action in accordance with law. However, the machinery of criminal

prosecution under Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, cannot be invoked in respect

19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

of a village panchayat area which does not fall within the statutory

definition of “local area”. Similarly, a bald allegation of threat,

without particulars and without the element of alarm, cannot be

elevated into an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506

IPC.

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

proceedings in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022, pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, are quashed insofar as the

petitioners / A-2 and A-3 are concerned. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

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.

20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.19686 of 2024

01.06.2026

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