Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 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.19248 of 2024

1.Karthick Ambasankar

2. Sreedharan

3. Nagalingam

4. Suyambulingam

... Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 4

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep . by the Inspector of Police,

Vellichanthai Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

Cr.No.114 of 2023.

.... Respondents / Complainant

2. Sukumar .... Respondent /

De-facto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C.No.340 of

2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, in Crime

1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

No. 114 of 2023 dated 15.08.2023 on the file of the 1

st

respondent

police and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Suyambulingabharathi

For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.R.Rossel Raj

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition seeks quashment of the

proceedings in S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, arising out of Crime No.114 of 2023

registered by the first respondent police for the offences under

Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) IPC.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second

respondent/de facto complainant is the absolute owner and is in

possession and enjoyment of 13 cents of land comprised in Survey

No.60/11 situated at Vembanoor Village, Kanyakumari District.

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

3. According to the prosecution, on account of a dispute

relating to the said property, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 are alleged to

have entered upon the disputed portion, caused damage to the

boundary/compound structure of the de facto complainant’s

property for the purpose of forming or facilitating a road, and thereby

caused damage.

4. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant

questioned the petitioners regarding the said act, the petitioners

abused him in filthy language, damaged the boundary structure and

criminally intimidated him with dire consequences. On the basis of

the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.114 of

2023 dated 15.08.2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427

and 506(i) IPC. After investigation, final report was filed and the

same was taken cognizance as S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

Grounds for Quash:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

present prosecution is nothing but a counter-blast to the complaint

lodged by the first petitioner on 14.08.2023 at about 18.30 hours

against the de facto complainant and his relatives, for which CSR No.

422 of 2023 was issued. It was further contended that the final

report does not disclose any specific overt act as against each of the

petitioners and that all the accused have been mechanically roped

in.

6. As regards Section 427 IPC, it was submitted that though

the prosecution alleges damage, there is no valuation certificate or

competent material to establish the alleged damage. Therefore, the

offence of mischief causing damage is not made out.

7. As regards Section 294(b) IPC, it was contended that the

alleged abusive words do not satisfy the statutory requirement of

obscenity and that there is no material to show annoyance to the

public.

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

8. As regards Section 506(i) IPC, it was submitted that the

alleged threat was not real, immediate or capable of causing alarm.

The complaint was lodged after nearly 12 hours and therefore the

allegation of criminal intimidation is artificial and exaggerated.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the

prosecution has been initiated only to give a criminal colour to a

civil/property dispute. According to him, the materials collected

during investigation do not disclose the essential ingredients of

Sections 294(b), 427 or 506(i) IPC. He would submit that

continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of

Court.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent

submitted that the de facto complainant is the lawful owner of the

property and that the petitioners, without permission, entered upon

the property and damaged the boundary structure. He submitted

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

that the occurrence is not a mere civil dispute, but involves abusive

words, damage to property and criminal intimidation.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the first respondent submitted that the final report is

supported by witness statements and materials collected during

investigation. He submitted that the abusive words have been stated

in the prosecution materials, that the damage to the boundary has

been noticed, and that the threat with an iron rod attracts Section

506(i) IPC.

12. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the

proceedings in S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, arising out of Crime No.114 of 2023 for

the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) IPC, are liable to

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 528 BNSS?

Governing Principles:

14. The law governing quashment of criminal proceedings is

well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories where criminal

proceedings may be quashed, including cases where the allegations

do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly

mala fide.

15. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab

2

, it was held that

inherent power may be exercised where there is a legal bar to the

proceedings or where the allegations, even if taken at their face

value, do not constitute the offence alleged.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

2 AIR 1960 SC 866

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy

3

,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that the High Court, while

exercising inherent jurisdiction, should not embark upon an enquiry

as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations.

17. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of

Maharashtra

4

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal

proceedings should not be stifled at the threshold when the

allegations disclose commission of an offence and require trial.

18. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be

exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where

continuation of prosecution would be a clear abuse of process.

Analysis:

19. The present case is not at the FIR stage alone.

Investigation has been completed. The police have filed final report.

3 (2004) 6 SCC 522

4 (2021) 19 SCC 401

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, has taken cognizance and

the case is pending as S.T.C.No.340 of 2024.

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

allegations in the complaint/FIR, taken at their face value, disclose a

cognizable offence. In final report quash matters, the scrutiny is

slightly broader, inasmuch as the Court may look into the final

report, statements of witnesses and accompanying materials.

However, even at that stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial or

decide disputed questions of fact.

21. The petitioners rely upon their counter-complaint and the

alleged prior CSR. The existence of a counter-complaint may be

relevant during trial. It may assist the defence in suggesting motive

for false implication. However, it cannot, by itself, demolish the

prosecution case at the threshold.

22. Section 294(b) IPC requires that the accused must sing,

recite or utter obscene words in or near any public place, causing

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

annoyance to others. The contention of the petitioners is that no

qualifying obscene words have been clearly made out and that there

is no material to establish annoyance to the public.

23. The prosecution, on the other hand, asserts that the

abusive words have been stated in the prosecution materials.

Whether the words attributed to the accused are obscene within the

meaning of Section 294(b) IPC and whether such words caused

annoyance are matters which depend upon the evidence of witnesses

and the circumstances of the occurrence.

24. At this stage, this Court cannot dissect the language used,

test the reaction of the persons present, and conclude that the

offence under Section 294(b) IPC is wholly absent. Since the final

report alleges abuse in filthy language during the occurrence, the

said charge cannot be quashed at the threshold.

25. Section 427 IPC deals with mischief causing loss or

damage to the amount prescribed under the provision. The essential

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

ingredients are commission of mischief and resultant loss or damage.

The petitioners submit that there is no valuation certificate and

therefore Section 427 IPC is not attracted.

26. This Court is unable to accept the said contention at this

stage. A valuation certificate may be a piece of evidence. Its absence,

by itself, cannot be treated as fatal at the stage of quashment,

particularly when the allegation is that the boundary structure of the

de facto complainant’s property was damaged.

27. Whether the damage was actually caused, whether the

damage was caused by the petitioners, whether the value of damage

is correctly assessed, and whether the prosecution can establish the

same by admissible evidence are matters for trial. Therefore, the

offence under Section 427 IPC cannot be held to be inherently

improbable or legally unsustainable at this threshold stage.

28. Section 506(i) IPC punishes criminal intimidation. The

essence of the offence is threat with intent to cause alarm to the

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

person threatened or to compel him to do or omit any act. The

petitioners contend that the complaint was lodged after 12 hours and

therefore the alleged threat could not have been real.

29. Delay in lodging the complaint may be a circumstance

available to the defence. However, delay by itself does not erase the

allegation of threat, particularly when the prosecution alleges that

the petitioners threatened the de facto complainant with dire

consequences and that one of the accused was armed with an iron

rod.

30. Whether the alleged threat caused alarm, whether the

complainant’s version is exaggerated, and whether the threat was

real or casual are matters which require appreciation of oral

evidence. Such appreciation cannot be undertaken in a petition

under Section 528 BNSS. Therefore, the charge under Section 506(i)

IPC also cannot be quashed at this stage.

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

31. The petitioners contend that no specific overt act is

attributed to each accused. However, the prosecution case is one of a

common occurrence involving all the petitioners. At the stage of

quashment, it is sufficient if the final report discloses the

participation of the accused in the occurrence and the basic

ingredients of the alleged offences.

32. Whether all the petitioners actively participated, whether

some of them were merely present, and whether individual liability

can be fastened upon each of them are matters to be considered by

the trial Court upon evidence.

33. It is true that the dispute appears to have a property

background. However, the mere existence of a civil dispute does not

bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose criminal offences.

If, in the course of a property dispute, the accused are alleged to

have abused, damaged property and criminally intimidated the

complainant, the proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the

ground that the parties are also involved in a property dispute.

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

34. The defence of counter-blast, prior complaint and civil

dispute may be urged before the trial Court. Those contentions

cannot be converted into grounds for quashment when the

prosecution materials disclose triable issues.

35. On a careful consideration of the FIR, final report, rival

submissions and materials placed before this Court, this Court is of

the view that the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the

basic ingredients of Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) IPC.

36. This is not a case where the complaint is absurd on its

face. This is not a case where there is a legal bar to prosecution. This

is not a case where the final report, even if accepted in entirety, fails

to disclose any offence. The petitioners seek adjudication of disputed

facts under the guise of quashment. Such an exercise is

impermissible under Section 528 BNSS.

37. In the present case, the petitioners may have a defence

that the prosecution is a counter-blast and that the dispute is

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

essentially civil in nature. Such defence may be substantial or even

ultimately acceptable. But the stage for such adjudication is trial,

not quashment.

38. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands

dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, shall proceed

with S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by

any of the observations made in this order, which are confined only

to the consideration of this petition under Section 528 BNSS.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Vellichanthai Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.19248 of 2024

01.06.2026

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