BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.10.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.15032 & 15035 of 2025 Gokulpandi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.107 of 2024)

2.Mr.Thirumalai, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C.No.943 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in S.T.C.No.943 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, filed against the petitioner/A2 for the offence punishable under Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the petitioner, along with others, had danced in an obscene manner in front of the temple car and abused the passers-by in filthy language, stating that it is their festival, and thus committed the offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the offence punishable under Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, would not be made out, as there was no injunction issued by any lawful authority not to repeat or continue any nuisance, and therefore, the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent would reiterate the allegations in the final report.

5. As stated in the final report, the petitioner, along with others, has committed nuisance to the general public by dancing in front of the car and uttering certain words. Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, reads as under:

“291. Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue.—Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

6. The offence would be made out only if a person repeats or continues a public nuisance even after an injunction has been issued by any lawful authority not to repeat or continue such offence. Admittedly, in this case, no such injunction has been issued by any lawful authority. Under a similar circumstance, this Court, in a judgment in Ravikumar v. The Inspector of Police, Puliampatti Police Station and another, dated 30.09.2024 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13470 of 2024, after referring to the earlier its judgment in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16135 of 2021 dated 09.11.2021, observed as follows:

“6.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16135 of 2021 dated 09.11.2021 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-

5.The question that arises for consideration is whether the acts attributed to the petitioners can be said to attract the offence under Section 291 of IPC. One of the very few cases on the subject is the one reported in ILR (1886) 8 ALL 99 (Queen- Empress vs. Jokhu). It was held by His Lordship Mr.Justice Oldfield that to support a conviction under Section 291 of the Penal Code, there must be proof of an injunction to the accused individually against repeating or continuing the same particular public nuisance. It must be shown that the person convicted had on some previous occasion committed the particular nuisance, had been enjoined not to repeat or continue it, and had repeated or continued it. The authority under which a Magistrate can order or