M.A.Vijayanatarajan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Karuppayurani

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.10.2026
Pronounced on : 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010313182026}
and
CRL MP(MD) No. 5293 of 2026
M.A.Vijayanatarajan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector Of Police,
Karuppayurani Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No. 130 of 2025.
2. G.Sebasti Sahaya Selvarani
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed
against the petitioner in C.C.No.106 of 2026, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate II, Madurai, in respect of Crime No.130 of 2025, on the file of
st
the 1 respondent police.
For Petitioner(s) : M/s P.P.Alwin Balan
For Respondent(s) :M/s.V.Sathurthi Raja
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for
R1
M/s.S.Vidhya Sagar
For R2
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the sole accused
in C.C.No.106 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Madurai, seeking to quash the final report, wherein he stands
charged for the offences punishable under Section 296(b) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,
2002.
2. The case of the prosecution, as could be culled out from the final
report, is that on 19.03.2025 at about 07.30 a.m., while the defacto
complainant was getting the land adjoining her property cleared and was
giving instructions to the workers engaged therein, the petitioner/accused
is said to have hurled abuses at the defacto complainant and her family
members in a public place.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in S.No.13/11,
measuring an extent of 28 cents, and that the defacto complainant had
purchased the adjoining land in S.No.13/12, measuring an extent of 12
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
cents. Between the said two properties, there lies a public pathway having
a width of 20 feet, and according to the petitioner, the defacto
complainant attempted to encroach upon the said pathway.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he lodged a complaint
before the first respondent police on 07.03.2025 and, in the enquiry held
on 10.03.2025, the son of the defacto complainant appeared and
undertook to remove the encroachment put up on the public pathway.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8448 of
2025 seeking removal of the encroachment, and this Court, by order
dated 27.03.2025, directed the authorities concerned to initiate
proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
5. The learned counsel would further submit that, pursuant thereto,
an enquiry was conducted and a final order under Section 6 of the Tamil
Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, came to be passed against the
defacto complainant on 30.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto
complainant approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.30463 of 2025, and
this Court, by order dated 29.10.2025, directed the appellate authority to
dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks. The appellate
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
authority, namely, the District Collector, by order dated 09.01.2026,
dismissed the appeal preferred by the defacto complainant. It is in this
background that the present complaint came to be lodged by the defacto
complainant on 16.09.2025, alleging that the petitioner had abused her.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
alleged words of abuse have not even been set out in the charge sheet.
Placing reliance upon the statements of three witnesses recorded under
Section 180 of BNSS, he would submit that none of them supports the
version of the defacto complainant, and that the only other witness is the
son of the defacto complainant himself. According to the learned counsel,
the present criminal proceedings have been set in motion only to wreak
vengeance against the petitioner for having initiated proceedings for
removal of the encroachment.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC
818 and the decision of this Court in S.Selvakumar Vs. State, through the
Inspector of Police and another reported in 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 195.
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
8. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the property which
was the subject matter of the encroachment proceedings is entirely
different from the property in question, and therefore, the encroachment
proceedings initiated against the defacto complainant cannot afford a
defence to the petitioner to abuse and threaten the defacto complainant.
He would further submit that specific overt acts have been attributed
against the petitioner and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. A perusal of the First Information Report would indicate that the
petitioner is alleged to have used abusive words; however, the alleged
words have not been set out in the charge sheet. Even assuming that the
words found in the FIR are abusive in nature, unless such words contain
some lascivious element tending to arouse sexual thoughts or feelings, the
offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, which is pari materia with Section
294(b) of IPC, would not be attracted. In this regard, it is useful to refer
to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818, wherein, at
paragraph Nos.8 and 9, it has been held as follows:
“8. It has to be noted that in the instant case, the
absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements
arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract
the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records
disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be
the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire
obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is
hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or
defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under
Section 294(b) IPC.
9. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere
utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must
be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of
others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about
the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of
legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the
appellant-accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the
ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is made
out.”
The principle laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the
facts of the present case.
11. Insofar as the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, is concerned, the very
same verbal abuse is sought to be brought within the ambit of the said
provision. The allegations are vague and omnibus in nature. Even
according to the defacto complainant, the petitioner neither came armed
with any weapon nor manhandled her. Further, the independent
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
witnesses, namely, L.W.3, L.W.5 and L.W.6, in their statements recorded
under Section 180 of BNSS, have categorically stated that the petitioner
did not threaten the defacto complainant or her family members.
12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view
that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the ingredients of
the offences under Section 296(b) of BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, are not made out.
Permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner
would only amount to an abuse of process of law.
13. In the result, the charge sheet in C.C.No.106 of 2026 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, is hereby quashed and
this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector Of Police,
Karuppayurani Police Station,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre-delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) No. 4948 of 2026
02.11.2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:46:17 pm )