Madras HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Abusing Woman, Citing Unspecified Words And Witnesses’ Statements That He Made No Threats

The petitioner, the sole accused in C.C. No. 106 of 2026, sought to quash a charge sheet alleging offences under Section 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

The prosecution alleged that, on 19 March 2025, during a dispute concerning land clearance and an adjoining public pathway, the petitioner abused the complainant and her family in a public place.

The petitioner contended that the complaint arose from a property dispute and that the charge sheet did not specify the alleged abusive words; he also relied on witness statements said not to support the complainant’s account.

The complainant disputed the relevance of the encroachment proceedings and maintained that specific overt acts were alleged.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the charge sheet.

Section 296(b) BNS, which the Court treated as pari materia with Section 294(b) IPC, is not attracted by abusive, humiliating or defamatory words alone; the words must contain a lascivious element tending to arouse sexual thoughts or feelings, and the evidence must establish that the utterance caused annoyance to others.

The Court relied on N.S. Madhanagopal and another v. K. Lalitha, (2022) 17 SCC 818, which states that the alleged obscene words need not invariably be reproduced in full, but the record must disclose their substance and evidence of resulting annoyance.

The Court also considered Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and assessed whether the alleged conduct, as presented in the charge sheet and witness statements, brought the petitioner’s actions within that provision.

Section 528 BNSS supplied the jurisdiction invoked to seek quashing.

The Court noted that, although the FIR referred to abusive words, the charge sheet did not set them out.

Even assuming the words were abusive, the record did not show that they had the lascivious character required for Section 296(b) BNS or establish that they caused annoyance to others; the rule in Madhanagopal therefore applied.

As to Section 4 of the 2002 Act, the Court found that the same verbal allegations were vague and omnibus, and that the complainant’s account did not involve the petitioner being armed or physically assaulting her.

It also relied on the statements of independent witnesses L.Ws. 3, 5 and 6, who stated that the petitioner did not threaten the complainant or her family.

It quashed the charge sheet in C.C. No. 106 of 2026, allowed the Criminal Original Petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.