Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1219
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Baskaran – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Chatrakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13448 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Ramanujam For M/s. Gandhi Associates
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side).
A criminal prosecution for the disfigurement of public places requires the occurrence to take place within a defined 'local area' under the Act and must present evidence of the board's disfiguring nature, failing which, the proceedings constitute an abuse of process.
Headnote:The proceedings concern an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash a final report filed for an alleged offence under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. The petitioners were accused of erecting a name board in Government poramboke land within a Village Panchayat. The court examined whether the prosecution materials disclosed the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence and the territorial applicability of the Act. The core issues addressed were whether a Village Panchayat qualifies as a 'local area' under the Act and whether the mere erection of a board without evidence of its content or disfigurement constitutes an offence. The court held that the definition of 'local area' is restricted to Corporations and Municipalities, thereby excluding Village Panchayats. Furthermore, the court emphasized that criminal prosecution requires clear evidence of the mischief the statute aims to prevent, and the lack of description of the board or its contents rendered the accusation legally unsustainable. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 were quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
ORDER :
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Preface:
The present Criminal Original Petition is one such proceeding wherein the petitioners, arrayed as A-2 to A-5 in S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, seek quashment of the final report laid for the alleged offence under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
2. The controversy, though presented as one concerning erection of a name board in Government poramboke land, essentially raises a narrower but decisive legal issue, namely, whether the prosecution materials, even if accepted in their entirety, attract the statutory ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners.
Case of the Prosecution:
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the second respondent, Chellammal, who was functioning as the Block Development Officer of Bogalur Union Panchayat, had received a communication from the President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat. In the said communication, it was alleged that one K.R.Velu had erected a name board in Government poramboke land comprised in Survey No.287/1A, 1B, 2 situated at Muthuvayal Village. According to the prosecution, the said board was removed by the authorities. It is further alleged that on 06.02.2021, the said K.R.Velu, along with the present petitioners, once again erected a name board in the same place.
4. Based on the communication received from the Village Panchayat President, the second respondent forwarded a complaint / letter to the first respondent police requesting appropriate action. On receipt of the same, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2021 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet against K.R.Velu and the present petitioners, arraying the petitioners as A-2 to A-5. The final report was taken on file as S.T.C.No.963 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.
Grounds for Quash:
6. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that the very reading of the FIR and the final report does not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. It is contended that Section 4-A of the Act, on which the prosecution substantially rests, applies only to a “local area” as defined in the statutory Explanation. The said expression, according to the petitioners, is confined to Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, and does not extend to a Village Panchayat.
7. It is further contended that the alleged place of occurrence is admittedly situated in Muthuvayal Village Panchayat and not within any Municipal Corporation or Municipality. Therefore, the invocation of the penal provision itself is legally misconceived. The petitioners also contend that no board was seized during investigation. The alleged offending board has not been produced before the Court. There is no mahazar evidencing seizure of the board. There is no photograph, document, or material object to show the nature, contents, size, location, or alleged objectionable character of the board.
8. It is also contended that the FIR mentions the date of occurrence as 06.02.2021, whereas the charge sheet refers to 02.02.2021. According to the petitioners, such discrepancy is not a mere clerical irregularity, but demonstrates the casual and mechanical manner in which the prosecution has been launched. The petitioners further allege that the prosecution is politically motivated. According to them, there are two groups in Muthuvayal Village, one headed by the Village Panchayat President Ravi, and the other headed by K.R.Velu / A-1. Since K.R.Velu had contested against the said Panchayat President, the present case is alleged to have been foisted at the instigation of the said President.
9. On the above grounds, the petitioners contend that the present case f
