Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1228
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Ilambaruthi @ Elamparithi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Chatrakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19686 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.12124 and 12126 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Ramanujam For M/s. Gandhi Associates.
For the Respondents:Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side).
Criminal proceedings can be quashed when the statutory prerequisites for an offence, such as territorial applicability, are not met, or when the complaint lacks the essential ingredients of the alleged crimes, such as specific overt acts and actual intent to cause alarm in cases of criminal intimidation.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 - Section 4-A(1)(a) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506(i) - Offences relating to disfigurement of public space and criminal intimidation - Statutory definition of 'local area' in the state act explicitly limits application to municipal corporations and municipalities - Legislative intent excludes village administrative areas from the scope of the provision. (Paras 10, 25, 27)
(B) Criminal Intimidation - Necessary ingredients - Offence requires clear demonstration of threat, intent to cause alarm, and specific overt acts - General allegations of 'dire consequences' without particulars regarding words uttered or reactions caused do not satisfy the legal standard for prosecution. (Paras 29, 32, 33)
(C) Quashing of proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction - High Court justified in interdicting criminal proceedings where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the required ingredients of the offences - Courts must not allow abuse of process where the territorial applicability is absent or essential factual averments are missing. (Paras 18, 19, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a charge sheet involving alleged offences of unauthorised display of a board on land owned by the government and criminal intimidation. The prosecution contended that the board was erected within a local administrative unit despite prior removal, while the petitioners argued that the relevant state act does not cover the specific geographical area, and the allegations of intimidation were vague and lacked necessary legal ingredients.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the penal provision for disfigurement is restricted to defined municipal areas and cannot be mechanically applied to other administrative units. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of specific details regarding the alleged intimidation and consequently found the proceedings to be an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the statutory definition of 'local area' under the state disfigurement act extends to non-municipal areas, and whether the averments in the police report establish the essential elements of criminal intimidation.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provisions containing restrictive definitions of local jurisdiction must be construed strictly; expanding them through judicial interpretation is prohibited. Criminal proceedings based on vague allegations that fail to satisfy the specific components of an offence constitute an abuse of process warranting the exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings.
Result: Petition allowed; the pending proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of section 528 bnss inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding the inappropriateness of penal statutes in rural areas and vagueness of criminal allegations. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. factual background of the alleged offences under tn act and ipc. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. standards for high court intervention in quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. statutory territorial limitation of the tn open places (prevention of disfigurement) act to municipal/urban areas. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. essential ingredients of criminal intimidation under ipc require specific threats and intent to cause alarm. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. necessity of specific overt acts to establish vicarious criminal liability. (Para 34) |
| 8. quashing of proceedings where the prosecution fails to meet statutory requirements or jurisdictional thresholds. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
ORDER :
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, and to quash the same as against the petitioners.
2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is invoked by the petitioners, who are arrayed as A-2 and A-3 in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. The petitioners seek quashment of the final report laid against them for the alleged offences under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 4-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the basic ingredients of either of the offences alleged. Their principal contention is that Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, is attracted only to “local areas” defined under the said provision, namely Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, and cannot be mechanically extended to a village panchayat area. The second limb of attack is that the allegation of criminal intimidation is bald, vague and bereft of the essential ingredient of alarm.
Case of the Prosecution:
4. The second respondent / de facto complainant is stated to be the Block Development Officer of Bogalur Panchayat Union. According to the prosecution, she received a communication from the President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat alleging that one K.R.Velu had erected a name board on Government poramboke land situated at Muthuvayal Village on 30.07.2020 and that the said board was removed by the authorities.
5. It is further alleged that on 24.08.2020, the said K.R.Velu, along with the present petitioners, once again erected a name board in the Government poramboke land. It is also alleged that the President of Muthuvayal Village Panchayat was threatened with dire consequences. Based on the letter said to have been sent by the Panchayat President, the second respondent forwarded a communication to the first respondent police requesting action. Thereupon, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.210 of 2020 for the offences under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 4-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
6. After completion of investigation, the first respondent police filed a final report, which was taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.254 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, as against K.R.Velu and the present petitioners.
Grounds for Quash:
7. The petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings primarily on the following grounds:
7.1. Firstly, Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, applies only to the “local area” define
