BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22079 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.19001 and 19002 of 2025

Lakshmi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Illuppur Police Station,

Pudukkottai District.

(Cr.No.101 of 2025)

2.Periyasamy ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No.155 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District, on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as against

the petitioner / A2.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vishnu

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.T.C. No.155 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District, and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned.

2. The petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings have been maliciously initiated by giving a criminal colour to a purely civil and revenue dispute relating to alleged encroachment of Government poramboke land and that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are conspicuously absent.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the First Information Report and the final report, is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police alleging that the petitioner herein and one Palani (A1) attempted to occupy Government poramboke land in Survey Nos.474/67 and 474/69, Meiyagoundanpatti Village. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant questioned such alleged encroachment, the petitioner abused him using obscene language and threatened him with dire consequences, including an alleged attempt to attack him with an aruval. Based on the said complaint, a case came to be registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC), culminating in S.T.C. No.155 of 2025.

Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner would contend that the entire allegations are false, fabricated, and motivated by prior civil and revenue disputes between the parties. According to the petitioner, the dispute pertains to land classification, pathway, and patta rights, which are matters falling exclusively within the domain of Civil Courts and revenue authorities. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay of nearly two months in lodging the complaint, that no injury has been caused to the de facto complainant, that all the witnesses cited are interested or hearsay witnesses, and that there is material inconsistency between the contents of the FIR and the final report, particularly with regard to the alleged use of an aruval.

5. Grounds for quash:

(i)The dispute is purely civil in nature relating to alleged encroachment of Government land and has been improperly converted into a criminal prosecution.

(ii)Even if the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are accepted in toto, the essential ingredients of Sections 296(b) and

351(2) BNS are not made out.

(iii)There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner and the allegations are omnibus and vague.

(iv)Alleged encroachment of Government land can only be addressed under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and through revenue proceedings.

(v)The alleged obscene words were not uttered in a public place nor is there any evidence of annoyance to the public.

(vi)There was no real or imminent threat intended to cause alarm so as to attract Section 351(2) BNS.

(vii)The proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and perso