BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22201 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.19114 and 19118 of 2025

1. Bibin @ Berjin Jeba Kumar,

2. Asir @ Asir Feroz,

3. Justin, ... Petitioners / Accused No.4,6,10

Vs.

1. The State Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Thiruvattar Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

(Crime No.82 of 2024) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2. Bindhu ... 2^nd Respondent /

De facto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in CC.No.357/2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and quash the charge sheet as against the

petitioner herein.

For Petitioner : M/s. V.Muthulakshmi For R-1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh. B Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.357 of 2025, wherein the petitioners have been arrayed as accused for offences including obstruction of a public servant, use of obscene and abusive language, and criminal intimidation.

2. The petitioners, who are stated to be advocates by profession, seek to interdict the criminal proceedings at the threshold, contending that the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the FIR and elaborated in the charge sheet, is that on 10.03.2024 at about 21.00 hours, when the de facto complainant, a Woman Head Constable (WHC No.1945), was entering the police station for performing her station duty, the accused persons wrongfully restrained her and obstructed her from entering the police station. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant questioned the accused as to why she was being prevented from performing her official duties, the accused abused her in filthy, obscene, and degrading language. The charge sheet specifically mentions the obscene Tamil words allegedly uttered by the accused, which are stated to be vulgar in nature and intended to insult and humiliate the woman police official.

4. The prosecution further alleges that the accused criminally intimidated the de facto complainant by threatening her with dire consequences, including threat to life, thereby causing fear and alarm in her mind. On completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet, which has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, in C.C.No.357 of 2025.

Grounds urged by the petitioners:

5. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the charge sheet do not attract the offences alleged and that the prosecution is motivated by malice. It is argued that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted, as mere abusive language would not constitute obscenity, and that Section 506(i) IPC is also not made out, as the alleged threats are vague and not intended to cause alarm. The petitioners further submit that the matter ought to be tested only on the basis of legal ingredients and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the charge sheet clearly discloses specific obscene and filthy words uttered by the accused, particularly directed against a woman police official while she was discharging her official duties. It is further submitted that the accused being advocates are expected to uphold the dignity of the law and that their alleged conduct, if proved, would amount to serious misconduct warranting a full-

fledged trial.

7. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the allegations contai