Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

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.2792 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3094 and 3095 of 2026

1. Pitchai

2. Sivakumar

3. Raj Babu

4. Durai Muruganantham @ Murugan

5. Pradeep

6. Mukilan ... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Inspector of Police,

Athiramapattinam Police Station,

Thanjavur District.

Crime No.151/2021

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. Karthick

.... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records connection with case in

C.C.No.698 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

Court, Pattukottai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioners: Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar

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

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the

entire records connection with case in C.C.No.698 of 2025 on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai and quash the

same as against the petitioner.

Case of the prosecution:

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

respondent/de facto complainant was serving as Sub-Inspector of

Police attached to Vattathikkottai Police Station, Thanjavur District,

and was deputed for election security duty in connection with the

2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections.

2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

3. According to the prosecution, on 06.04.2021 at about 6.00

p.m., while the de facto complainant was on duty near Kadhar

Mohideen Boys School, Athiramapattinam, the petitioners entered

within the prohibited 100-meter radius of the polling booth and

canvassed voters.

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

petitioners to move beyond the restricted zone, they threatened him

with dire consequences and thereby obstructed him from discharging

official duties. Based on the complaint lodged by the second

respondent, FIR in Crime No.151 of 2021 came to be registered for

offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC and Sections

130 and 132 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. After

investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, which was taken on file in

C.C.No.698 of 2025.

Case of the petitioners:

5. The petitioners would contend that the entire occurrence is

fabricated and politically motivated. According to them, they have

3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

been falsely implicated owing to their affiliation with an opposition

political party and the prosecution has been engineered at the behest

of ruling party elements.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no

independent witness has been cited though the alleged occurrence is

said to have taken place in a crowded polling environment. All the

witnesses cited in the final report are police personnel belonging to

the very same station. It is further contended that no voter, no

polling official and not even the Presiding Officer has lodged any

complaint alleging disruption of polling or obstruction to voters. The

learned counsel would further submit that the observation mahazar

itself is fundamentally defective since it does not indicate the

reference point from which the alleged 100-meter prohibited zone

was measured.

7. The petitioners would also assail the ingredients of each

penal provision separately by contending:

(i) no unlawful assembly or rioting is made out under Section

147 IPC;

4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

(ii) no obscene words are specifically stated so as to attract

Section 294(b) IPC;

(iii) no criminal force or assault is alleged for Section 353 IPC;

(iv) no intentional alarm is alleged for Section 506(i) IPC; and

(v) the ingredients of Sections 130 and 132 of the

Representation of the People Act are conspicuously absent.

8. Heavy reliance was placed upon the celebrated judgment in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

and several decisions of this

Court dealing with Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC.

Submissions of the state:

9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) would submit that the allegations disclose cognizable offences

and the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations cannot be

examined in a petition under Section 528 BNSS. The learned

Government Advocate would contend that election-related offences

have serious ramifications upon democratic functioning and

therefore the petitioners cannot seek premature termination of the

prosecution.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

10. It was further argued that the statements recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973, disclose that the petitioners were

canvassing voters within the prohibited radius and had threatened

the police officer when questioned. According to the prosecution, the

question whether the petitioners were actually present within the

prohibited zone and whether the acts attributed to them amount to

criminal offences are matters to be adjudicated only during trial

upon appreciation of evidence.

Points for consideration:

11. The following points arise for consideration in this petition:

(i) Whether the allegations in the FIR and final report disclose

the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners?

(ii) Whether the continuation of prosecution in C.C.No.698 of

2025 would amount to abuse of process of Court?

(iii) Whether this Court ought to exercise its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings?

6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

Analysis:

12. The principles governing exercise of inherent powers are

too well settled to require reiteration. The power is extraordinary, but

where the allegations even if accepted in entirety fail to disclose any

offence, the Court would be justified in preventing abuse of process.

The law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2

continues to

remain the guiding beacon. One of the categories recognised therein

is where the allegations in the FIR and accompanying materials do

not prima facie constitute any offence.

13. This Court is conscious that meticulous appreciation of

evidence is impermissible at the quash stage. However, when the

foundational ingredients themselves are absent, compelling the

accused to undergo the ordeal of criminal trial would itself become

injustice.

14. To constitute an offence under Section 147 IPC, there must

first exist an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC

and the assembly must have used force or violence in prosecution of

a common object. In the case on hand, the prosecution merely

21992 Supp(1) SCC 335

7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

alleges that the petitioners were canvassing voters near the polling

booth. There is absolutely no allegation of violence, force, assault or

destructive conduct.

15. Mere presence of multiple individuals at the place of

occurrence cannot automatically transform the gathering into an

unlawful assembly. Political canvassing, even if improper within a

restricted electoral zone, would not ipso facto constitute rioting

unless accompanied by force or violence. The final report is

conspicuously silent regarding any overt act constituting use of force

or violence. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 147 IPC are

conspicuously absent.

16. The law regarding Section 294(b) IPC is no longer res

integra. Mere utterance of abusive language is insufficient unless the

prosecution specifically states the obscene words used and further

demonstrates annoyance caused to others. In the present case,

neither the FIR nor the final report mentions the exact words

allegedly uttered by the petitioners. Equally absent is any allegation

that any member of the public was annoyed. The prosecution has

8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

also failed to cite even a single independent voter as witness to such

alleged utterances. The offence under Section 294(b) IPC therefore

cannot stand.

17. Section 353 IPC requires assault or use of criminal force

against a public servant with intent to deter him from discharging

official duties. The Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of

Karnataka

3

categorically held that mere verbal altercation or

expression without criminal force would not attract Section 353 IPC.

18. In the present case, the prosecution does not allege that

the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant or used criminal

force against him. There is no allegation of physical contact, pushing,

manhandling or any act amounting to assault. The allegations, even

if accepted in entirety, only indicate verbal protest or resistance.

Such allegations fall woefully short of the statutory threshold

required under Section 353 IPC.

19. Criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC requires

threat coupled with intention to cause alarm. The FIR merely states

32015 7 SCC 423

9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

that the petitioners threatened the police officer with dire

consequences. No specific words are stated. No circumstance

suggesting actual alarm or intimidation is disclosed.

20. The Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of

Karnataka

4

held that mere expression of words without intention to

cause alarm would not attract criminal intimidation. This Court finds

that the allegations are omnibus, vague and lacking in particulars.

Consequently, the ingredients of Section 506(i) IPC are not made out.

21. The gravamen of the prosecution is that the petitioners

canvassed voters within 100 meters of the polling station. However,

the observation mahazar does not specify from where the 100-meter

radius was measured. It does not indicate whether measurement

was taken from the entrance, boundary or polling room.

22. More importantly, the prosecution has not examined the

Presiding Officer or any polling official though they would be the

most competent witnesses regarding polling disruptions. No voter

42015 7 SCC 423

10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

has complained of intimidation or obstruction. No video footage or

contemporaneous election material has been produced.

23. The entire prosecution therefore rests solely upon

interested police witnesses without independent corroboration. While

absence of independent witnesses may not always be fatal, in

election-related prosecutions occurring in crowded public spaces, the

total absence of neutral testimony assumes great significance.

24. This Court also notices that the allegations, even if

accepted, appear to disclose at best a minor election-time commotion

occurring in the heat of political activity without any actual

disruption of polling. The ratio laid down by this Court in cases

concerning trivial election-time altercations would squarely apply to

the present facts.

25. Courts must remain vigilant against criminal law being

employed as a weapon of political retaliation. Though political rivalry

by itself cannot justify quashing, the Court cannot ignore glaring

investigative deficiencies.

11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

26. The investigation in the present case suffers from serious

infirmities:

(i) absence of independent witnesses;

(ii) absence of Presiding Officer testimony;

(iii) absence of material particulars;

(iv) absence of proof regarding the 100-meter restriction; and

(v) absence of ingredients constituting the offences alleged.

27. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue

merely on vague and generalized allegations unsupported by

foundational facts. Subjecting the petitioners to prolonged criminal

trial in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process and

unnecessary harassment.

Epilogue:

28. Democracy undoubtedly demands strict adherence to

electoral discipline. Yet, criminal law cannot be stretched to convert

every election-time disagreement into a full-fledged criminal

prosecution bereft of statutory ingredients. Courts are guardians not

only against crime but equally against misuse of criminal process.

12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

The inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 528 BNSS exists

precisely to prevent such misuse and to secure the ends of justice.

29. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations

contained in the FIR and final report, even if accepted in entirety, fail

to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the

petitioners. This Court is therefore satisfied that the present case

squarely falls within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana

v. Bhajan Lal

5

warranting interference.

30. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed

and the proceedings in C.C.No.698 of 2025 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, arising out of Crime No.151 of 2021

on the file of the respondent police are hereby quashed as against

the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

51992 Supp(1) SCC 335

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,

Pattukottai.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Athiramapattinam Police Station,

Thanjavur District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.2792 of 2026

01.06.2026

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