BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.18351 of 2025

1.Santhosh Kumar

2.Mathavan

3.Karthickraja

4.Ramana ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State Rep. by,

The Inspector of Police,

Manamadurai Police Station,

Sivagangai Disrict.

(in Crime No.489 of 2023) ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.T.C.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court Manamadurai, Sivagangai District and quash

the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balamuruganatham For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court Manamadurai, Sivagangai District, which was filed for the offences under Section 291 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2023, at about 13.00 hours, while the de facto complainant was on duty, he found that the petitioners were jointly causing nuisance by uttering obscene words. Despite official intervention, they continued the same, and hence they were caught red-handed, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.21 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are young men pursuing various coaching classes for competitive examinations. He further submitted that all the petitioners belong to the same village and have been unnecessarily roped into the criminal proceedings, which were registered merely for statistical purposes, thereby causing great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioners, who are aspiring youngsters diligently pursuing their studies for competitive examinations. It was further submitted that a careful reading of the charge sheet itself would reveal that it is bereft of any specific details regarding the alleged obscenity or the obscene words purportedly uttered by the petitioners. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed, and the learned counsel prayed for allowing the criminal original petition.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners were continuously indulging in creating nuisance to the general public at a public junction despite repeated warnings. Even after intervention by the local police, more particularly the second respondent, they continued to cause public nuisance. Hence, there is no infirmity in the charge sheet, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the criminal original petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on records.

6.Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code defines public nuisance and the same is extracted as follows:

268. Public nuisance.—A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

7.However, in the case on hand, the charge framed against the petitioners herein is under Section 291 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with the continuance of nuisance after an injunction to discontinue the same, and the provision is extracted as follows:

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 is