BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22365 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.19268 of 2025

1. Abuthahir

2. Noormohamed ... Petitioners /Accused No. 1 & 2 Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by.

The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.249 of 2022). ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2. Amirtharaj ... 2^nd Respondent /

Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 249 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as illegal this petitioner concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Manikandan For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.249 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same as illegal, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The impugned FIR has been registered for the alleged offences under Sections 353 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6(a) read with Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act).

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the contents of the FIR, is that on 05.05.2022, the 2^nd respondent, along with police officials, visited the petitioner’s shop. At that time, the petitioner was allegedly standing with a bag. When the 2^nd respondent asked the petitioner to open the bag, the petitioner allegedly admitted that the bag contained tobacco products. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the 2^nd respondent and the accompanying officials.

4. The respondent police claim to have seized the following tobacco products from the petitioner:

(i) Ganesh tobacco – 30 packets (20 grams each), (ii) Coollip – 23 packets (10 grams each), (iii) Vimal – 62 packets (2.6 grams each), (iv) VI tobacco – 170 small packets aggregating to 1 kg 280 grams.

5. On the above allegations, the FIR came to be registered alleging contravention of Section 6 of the COTP Act, 2003, punishable under Section 24(1) thereof, along with offences under Sections 353 and 506(1) IPC.

Case of the petitioner / Grounds for quash:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire registration of the FIR is an abuse of process of law, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are conspicuously absent. It is contended that mere possession or keeping of tobacco products, without any allegation of sale or offer for sale to a minor or within 100 yards of an educational institution, does not attract Section 6 of the COTP Act, 2003.

7. The FIR does not disclose that the petitioner sold, offered to sell, exposed for sale, or permitted the sale of tobacco products to any person below the age of 18 years, nor does it allege that such sale occurred within the prohibited radius of an educational institution. With regard to Section 506(1) IPC, it is submitted that the FIR does not disclose any specific threat, much less a threat intended to cause alarm. Mere usage of words, without intention to intimidate, does not constitute criminal intimidation.

8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, wherein it has been held that mere expression of words without intent to cause alarm is insufficient to attract Section 506 IPC. As regards Section 353 IPC, it is argued that there is no allegation of assault or use of criminal force against any public servant in the lawful discharge of official duty. The FIR does not disclose any overt act intended to deter or prevent the public servant from performing official functions. It is further contended that the offences alleged are time-barred,