K.Ezhumalai vs State -The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011408582026}
AND CRL MP NOS.11200 & 11199 OF 2026
K.Ezhumalai
S/o. Kuppan,
No.5/72-187A, Palla Colony,
Meyyur Village and Post,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Thiruvallur and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State -The Inspector of Police
Periyapalayam Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
2. Mr. Mathan Kumar
S/o. Poongavanam,
Palla Colony,
Meyyur Village and Post,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Thiruvallur and District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in CC No.89 of
2025 on the file the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Uthukottai,
Thiruvallur District and quash the same is concerned and pass such further or
other orders as this Honorable Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Suresh for Mr.M.P.Saravanan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
R2- Notice served – No appearance for R2
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the
records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C. No. 89 of 2025, pending on the
file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai,
Tiruvallur District, and to quash the same.
2.Though notice was served on the second respondent, he has not
appeared either in person or through counsel.
3.The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.03.2023, the defacto
complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police, stating that he had
been practising as an Advocate before the Uthukottai Court for several years.
On 29.03.2023, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against the
accused, K.Ezgynakaum before the District Collector, Tiruvallur, and the Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Aggrieved by the said action, the accused
allegedly confronted the defacto complainant on the following day. On
30.03.2023, at about 6.30 a.m., while the defacto complainant was reading a
newspaper and drinking tea at Sarath Tea Stall in his village, the said accused
allegedly approached him in an aggressive manner, abused him in obscene
language and questioned his credentials as an Advocate. The accused further
allegedly threatened to take the defacto complainant's life, stating that, since he
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
had lodged a complaint before the District Collector and the Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, he would engage persons to murder him. The accused
also allegedly threatened to kill him in the same manner as the Advocate who
was murdered at Saidapet. Upon hearing the commotion and the alleged
threats, several persons from the neighbourhood and the bystanders present at
the tea stall intervened and rescued the defacto complainant. Based on the
complaint, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No. 237 of 2023 on
31.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the
Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, the respondent police
filed the final report for the aforesaid offences, and the same was taken on file
as C.C. No. 89 of 2025 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
4.Upon perusal of the entire records, this Court finds that the allegations
do not prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. To
attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution must establish that obscene words were uttered in or near a public
place, causing annoyance to others. However, on perusal of the statements
recorded during the investigation, this Court finds that the specific obscene
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
words allegedly uttered by the accused have not been clearly set out. Further,
the materials on record do not establish that the alleged utterances caused
annoyance to any person present at the place of occurrence. In the absence of
such materials, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of
the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
5.To attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an
uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it
is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-
" 294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to
the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act
in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters
any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any
public place, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to three months, or with fine, or with both."
6.Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as
such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no
averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the
obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, the witnesses felt
annoyed. 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 petitioner
annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment
reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj &
anr., which held as follows :-
"To prove the offence under Section
294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence
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."
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the
petitioners.
7.Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to
attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients.
The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in
the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged
threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect
on the complainant.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
8.In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court
made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State
through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section
161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto
complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which
were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations
are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of
one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto
complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the
defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in
nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of
I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat
should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition
uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the
person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened
actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and
506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner
herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an
abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
quash the entire proceedings.”
9.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported in (1992)
SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which
the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court under S ection 482 Cr.P.C.:
"102..........
...................
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafide and/or where the
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
proceedings is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law
and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
10.In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the continuation
of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted. Accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 89 of
2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District, are quashed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Uthukottai, Thiruvallur District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Periyapalayam Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 16881 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NOS.11200 & 11199 OF 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )