Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 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.1289 of 2026

1. Thomas @ Dhamas

2. Lingabalan

... Petitioner/Accused No.1 & 2

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by Inspector of Police,

Paramakudi Taluk Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.2 of 2023

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. Vengateswaran

..... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in

C.C.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate,

Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same as

against the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2.

1/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

For Petitioners: Mr.S.Sylverster raj

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

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition brings before this Court

a prosecution arising out of Crime No.2 of 2023 registered by the

Paramakudi Taluk Police Station for the alleged offences under

Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. After

investigation, the first respondent police laid a final report, which

has been taken on file as C.C.No.209 of 2023 by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Paramakudi.

2. The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2,

seek quashment of the said criminal proceedings on the ground that

the case is a counterblast to an illegal and high-handed enquiry

conducted by the de-facto complainant in connection with an alleged

theft, and that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do

not constitute the offences alleged.

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.01.2023, the

de-facto complainant, being a police official, was discharging his

official duty. It is alleged that the petitioners abused him in obscene

words, wrongfully restrained him, obstructed him from discharging

his official duty, and criminally intimidated him with dire

consequences.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.2 of 2023

came to be registered by the first respondent police for the offences

under Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. After completion of

investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, and the same is now

pending as C.C.No.209 of 2023. According to the prosecution, the

accused had acted in concert and had intentionally prevented the de-

facto complainant from performing his lawful duty as a public

servant.

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

Grounds for quash:

5. The petitioners contend that the entire prosecution is false,

exaggerated and motivated. According to them, on the midnight of

01.01.2023, the first petitioner had attended the New Year Holy Mass

at Infant Jesus Church, Ulaganathapuram, Paramakudi, situated

near his residence. After the mass concluded at about 1.30 a.m., the

petitioner and his friends cut a cake and celebrated outside the

church.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the de-facto

complainant came to the church premises along with police

personnel, made an enquiry and thereafter sent the persons gathered

there to their respective homes. According to the petitioners, this

conduct itself would show that no unlawful act was committed by

the petitioners at that time.

7. The petitioners would further submit that thereafter, on the

morning of 01.01.2023, the de-facto complainant came alone to the

house of the first petitioner without any summons, notice or enquiry

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

slip and took him into custody. It is alleged that he was brought to

the church premises and interrogated in relation to an alleged theft

said to have occurred about 800 metres away on the same night.

8. The first petitioner allegedly denied any involvement in the

theft and questioned the manner in which he was taken for enquiry

without any lawful procedure. The second petitioner / A2 is stated to

have come to the spot later and questioned the de-facto complainant

regarding the baseless accusation made against A-1. According to

the petitioners, the present complaint was lodged only to justify and

cover up the earlier illegal detention and coercive interrogation. They

would therefore contend that the prosecution is mala fide, vindictive

and a clear abuse of process.

9. The petitioners further contend that the final report is

mechanical and does not disclose the basic ingredients of the

offences alleged. They submit that:

i. no specific obscene words are mentioned to attract Section

294(b) IPC;

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

ii. no material is available to show wrongful restraint under

Section 341 IPC;

iii. no overt act of assault or use of criminal force is alleged to

attract Section 353 IPC; and

iv. no grave, real or imminent threat is disclosed to attract

Section 506(ii) IPC.

The petitioners therefore seek quashment of C.C.No.209 of

2023 insofar as they are concerned.

Submissions on either side:

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the final report are

omnibus, vague and artificial. He would submit that the prosecution

has been built not upon a genuine occurrence, but upon the need to

justify an earlier unlawful enquiry conducted against A-1 in

connection with an alleged theft.

11. The learned counsel further submitted that the first

petitioner was not involved in any theft and had no criminal

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

antecedents. He had merely attended the New Year Holy Mass and

was thereafter subjected to an unwarranted enquiry. When such

illegal action was questioned, the present case was foisted against

the petitioners.

12. It was further argued that even if the entire final report is

taken at its face value, the offences alleged are not made out. The

learned counsel submitted that Section 294(b) IPC requires a specific

allegation of obscene words uttered in or near a public place causing

annoyance to others. In the present case, the alleged obscene words

have not been specifically stated.

13. With regard to Section 341 IPC, the learned counsel

submitted that there is no specific material to show that the de-facto

complainant was prevented from proceeding in any direction in

which he had a right to proceed.

14. With regard to Section 353 IPC, it was submitted that mere

questioning of a police official would not amount to assault or use of

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

criminal force. Unless there is a clear overt act showing assault or

criminal force with intent to deter a public servant from discharging

his duty, Section 353 IPC cannot be invoked.

15. As regards Section 506(ii) IPC, the learned counsel

submitted that the final report does not disclose any real, grave or

imminent threat capable of causing alarm. A bald allegation of threat

would not satisfy the statutory requirement of criminal intimidation.

The learned counsel therefore prayed that the proceedings in C.C.No.

209 of 2023 may be quashed as against the petitioners.

16. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for

the first respondent submitted that the allegations in the final report

disclose cognizable offences and that the truth or otherwise of the

allegations must be tested only during trial. The learned Government

Advocate further submitted that the de-facto complainant was a

public servant discharging his official duty and that the petitioners

had obstructed him, abused him and threatened him. Therefore,

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

according to the prosecution, the offences under Sections 294(b),

341, 353 and 506(ii) IPC are prima facie made out.

17. It was further submitted that this Court, while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, ought not to conduct a roving

enquiry into disputed questions of fact. The learned Government

Advocate therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

18. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

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

report in C.C.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Paramakudi, arising out of Crime No.2 of 2023, discloses

the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 294(b), 341,

353 and 506(ii) IPC as against the petitioners, or whether the

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse

of process of law warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

20. The prosecution arises out of an alleged occurrence dated

01.01.2023. The petitioners’ version is that A-1 had attended the

New Year Holy Mass at Infant Jesus Church, Ulaganathapuram,

Paramakudi, and that after the mass, he and others were celebrating

outside the church. The de-facto complainant is stated to have come

there with police personnel, made an enquiry and sent them home.

The further allegation of the petitioners is that thereafter the de-facto

complainant came to A-1’s house without summons, notice or

enquiry slip and took him for interrogation in relation to an alleged

theft. According to the petitioners, when this was questioned by A-1

and later by A-2, the present complaint came to be registered.

21. This Court is conscious that the defence version cannot

ordinarily be accepted as gospel truth at the stage of quashment.

However, where the prosecution materials themselves are vague and

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

do not disclose the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, the

Court is duty-bound to examine whether the continuation of the

proceedings would serve any legitimate purpose.

22. The substratum of the prosecution appears to be that the

petitioners questioned the de-facto complainant during an enquiry.

Mere questioning, protest or verbal altercation with a police official,

without the necessary ingredients of the penal offences alleged,

cannot automatically be criminalised under serious provisions of the

IPC.

23. As regards section 294(b) IPC is concerned, it punishes the

utterance of obscene words in or near any public place, provided

such utterance causes annoyance to others. Therefore, the essential

ingredients are:

i. utterance of obscene words;

ii. such utterance must be in or near a public place; and

iii. it must cause annoyance to others.

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

24. In cases involving Section 294(b) IPC, the complaint or

final report must disclose the actual obscene words alleged to have

been uttered. A general allegation that the accused abused the

complainant in filthy or obscene language is not sufficient. The Court

must be able to see whether the words attributed to the accused are

obscene in the legal sense.

25. In the present case, the final report does not specifically set

out the obscene words allegedly uttered by the petitioners. There is

also no clear material showing that such alleged words caused

annoyance to any member of the public. In the absence of the exact

words and in the absence of material showing public annoyance, the

offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out. A vague allegation

of abuse cannot be permitted to mature into a criminal trial under

Section 294(b) IPC.

26. Section 341 IPC deals with punishment for wrongful

restraint. Wrongful restraint means voluntarily obstructing a person

so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

which he has a right to proceed. The essence of the offence is

physical obstruction or prevention of movement. A mere exchange of

words, questioning of authority, or protest against an enquiry would

not by itself constitute wrongful restraint.

27. In the present case, the prosecution has not placed any

specific material to show that the de-facto complainant was

physically prevented from moving in any particular direction. The

final report does not disclose where exactly he was restrained, how

he was restrained, for what duration he was restrained, and by what

specific overt act each petitioner prevented his movement. In the

absence of such foundational particulars, the allegation under

Section 341 IPC remains bald and unsustainable. Therefore, the

offence under Section 341 IPC is not prima facie made out.

28. Section 353 IPC is attracted when a person assaults or

uses criminal force against a public servant with intent to prevent or

deter him from discharging his duty as such public servant. The

essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC are:

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

i. the person concerned must be a public servant;

ii. there must be assault or use of criminal force;

iii. such assault or criminal force must be used while the

public servant is discharging his duty; and

iv. the intention must be to prevent or deter the public servant

from discharging such duty.

29. The mere fact that the complainant is a police official does

not automatically attract Section 353 IPC. There must be a specific

allegation of assault or use of criminal force. A verbal protest,

resistance by words, or questioning of the legality of police action,

without any overt act amounting to assault or criminal force, cannot

constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC.

30. In the present case, the final report does not disclose any

clear act of assault or use of criminal force by either of the

petitioners. The prosecution has not attributed any specific physical

act to A-1 or A-2 by which the de-facto complainant was assaulted or

criminal force was used against him. The allegation appears to arise

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

from a dispute during an enquiry relating to an alleged theft. Even

assuming that the petitioners questioned the de-facto complainant,

such conduct, without more, cannot be stretched to attract Section

353 IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 353 IPC is not made

out on the materials placed before this Court.

31. Section 506(ii) IPC relates to aggravated criminal

intimidation. To attract the said provision, the alleged threat must be

of such a nature as to cause alarm to the complainant, and it must

relate to death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or

other serious consequences contemplated by the provision.

32. A casual, vague or general allegation that the accused

threatened the complainant with dire consequences is insufficient.

The threat must be real, grave and proximate. It must be shown that

the complainant was put in fear or alarm.

33. In the present case, the final report does not disclose the

exact words of threat allegedly uttered by the petitioners. It does not

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

explain how the alleged threat was grave enough to attract Section

506(ii) IPC. No material is placed to show that the de-facto

complainant was actually alarmed by the alleged threat. In the

absence of specific words, surrounding circumstances and material

showing alarm, the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is not prima

facie established.

34. This is not a case where the Court is dealing with an FIR at

the threshold of investigation. Investigation has already been

completed and a final report has been filed. Therefore, the Court has

the benefit of examining not merely the FIR but also the

prosecution’s final version. Where, even after investigation, the final

report does not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged,

compelling the accused to face trial would amount to abuse of

process. The filing of a final report does not immunise a prosecution

from judicial scrutiny under Section 528 BNSS.

35. In final-report quash matters, the Court must examine

whether the materials collected during investigation, even if taken as

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

true, constitute the alleged offences. If the answer is in the negative,

the continuation of prosecution would be futile. In the present case,

the allegations remain vague even after investigation. The final report

does not cure the defects in the complaint. There is no specific

obscene utterance for Section 294(b) IPC; no clear obstruction of

movement for Section 341 IPC; no assault or criminal force for

Section 353 IPC; and no grave or real threat for Section 506(ii) IPC.

36. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that the

prosecution is a counterblast to the questioning of an illegal enquiry

conducted by the de-facto complainant in relation to an alleged theft.

According to them, A-1 was taken from his house without summons

or notice and interrogated, and when the petitioners questioned such

conduct, the present case was foisted.

37. This Court is not required to finally adjudicate upon the

truth of the said allegation in this petition. However, the said

background assumes relevance when the prosecution materials

themselves are vague and do not disclose the offences alleged.

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

38. The criminal law cannot be used to silence a citizen merely

because he questions the legality of police action. At the same time,

public servants discharging lawful duty are entitled to protection

from obstruction, assault and intimidation. The decisive question is

whether the prosecution materials disclose such obstruction, assault

or intimidation in the legal sense. In the present case, they do not.

39. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would

amount to an abuse of process of law. Upon consideration of the FIR,

the final report and the allegations made therein, this Court finds

that the essential ingredients of Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii)

IPC are not made out as against the petitioners.

40. The allegations are vague, omnibus and unsupported by

the necessary particulars. The final report appears to have been filed

in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the

statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. Therefore,

this is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of

process.

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

proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, arising out of

Crime No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Paramakudi Taluk Police

Station, Ramanathapuram District, are hereby quashed insofar as

the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Paramakudi Taluk Police Station,

Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.1289 of 2026

01.06.2026

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