ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the pending FIR in Crime No.229 of 2024 on the file of the Cumbum South Police Station, Cumbum.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the de facto complainant is working as Vice Chariman of Cumbum Municipality. While so, in the year 2021, she along with one Thinakaran, Rathinakumar, Karpakaraj, Akri Murugesan @ Murugesan, Srisathyan, Janeetha, Raveeswaran, Praveen, Rajeshkumar and others run a textile business in the name of Suriya Fashion World. In the meantime, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the business was stopped and sustained loss. Thereafter, she run the same business in the name of Suriya Silks and Ready-mades. While so, the above said persons restrain the de facto complainant from conducting textile business. Thereby, the de facto complainant filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam. On 17.10.2024 at about 11.00 a.m., when the de facto complainant was proceeding to attend the municipal meeting, all the accused formed unlawful assembly and published obscene words and threatened and also they pasted the posters as against the de facto complainant and circulated it to the public. Therefore, she lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, an FIR in Crime No.229 of 2024 was registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent in respect of conducting textile business. When the petitioners asked about the accounts, the second respondent refused to render the accounts properly. Thereby, some arguments arose between them. While so, she lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. Even as per the FIR, there are no evidence to constitute the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. There are only vague and bald allegations averred in the FIR. Therefore, on entire reading of the FIR, no any offence made out. Hence, the pending FIR is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, they registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act and now the investigation is pending. Therefore, at this stage, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. There is no representation on the side of the second respondent.

Despite notice served to the second respondent, none appeared and the name of the second respondent also printed in the cause-list.

6. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.

229 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. According to the petitioners, the averments in the FIR does not disclose the ingredients to constitute the offences. This Court also perused the materials available on record. As per the FIR, the allegations are vague and bald allegations and no any specific allegations to constitute the offences. As far as the offences under Section 191(2) of BNS is concerned, there is no unlawful assembly and there is no any restrictions for the public. As far as Section 296(b) of BNS concerned, as per the FIR, there is no any specific words mentioned and vaguely mentioned as abused obscene words and also caused criminal intimidation in order to attract the criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of BNS, there is no any specific type of criminal intimidation and no any words mentioned in the FIR. As far as Section 4 of THPHW Act is conce