High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8885 of 2025V.Ranjithkumar ... Petitioner/sole accusedVs.1. The Inspector of Police, Dhally Police Station, Cr.No.250 of 2024 Tiruppur District.2.Riyaz Ahmed basha ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the criminal case in CC.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Darshsan for Mr.J.BalagopalFor Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) No appearance for R21/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025 O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II Udumalpet. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent who is working as a District Children Protection Officer at District Child Protection Unit, District Collector Office, Tiruppur District. The second respondent has received a complaint via Child Helpline on 16.11.2024, alleging that the petitioner has beaten his class students, abused them in filthy language and forced them to purchase liquor. 3. Based on the complaint, he has visited the School viz., Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamuthur, Tiruppur, to conduct enquiry with XII-C Students on 18.11.2024. During enquiry, the students had complained that the petitioner used to beat them and he also gossips about other teachers. Thereby, the petitioner has caused disturbance to the students' study. s2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 20254. As per enquiry report, the second respondent lodged a complaint and same has been registered by the first respondent police in Cr.No.250 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children),2015. After the completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.63 of 2025.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one of the students called the District Children Protection Officer at District, Child Protection Unit, District Collector Officer, Tiruppur District through Toll Free Number.1098. Upon receiving the complaint, the second respondent has visited the petitioner's school and enquired with the students about the issues. Based on the enquiry, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the first respondent had not examined any of the parents of the children or Teachers or 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025the Management of the School. The first respondent had just recorded the statements from the students and has filed a final report. Even according to the students, the petitioner used to beat them on their hands and gossip during class hours about other teachers. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police reiterated the prosecution case submitted that, the students have spoken about the overt act of the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 296(b) and115(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015. 8. Though notice was served on the second respondent and his name was also printed in the cause-list, no one appeared before this Court neither in person nor through counsel.9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 10. A perusal of records reveals that the first respondent police did not enquire any of the teachers, school management, Head 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025Master, or parents of the students who were allegedly beaten by the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no complaint from any students or their parents. 11. The second respondent received one anonymous call . Upon receiving the said call, the second respondent visited petitioner's School and has enquired with the 12th Standard '' C '' Section Students. He did not enquire the petitioner who was working as the Assistant Head Master and English Class Teacher for 12th Standard '' C '' Section Students of Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamuthur, Tiruppur District. 12. A perusal of statements recorded from the students also reveals that there is not even a whisper of an allegation that the petitioner beat them with any weapon or abused them with filthy language. The Statements merely indicates that the petitioner used to beat them with hands and gossip about other teachers during class hours. Therefore, there is absolutely no ingredients to attract any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 202513. In order to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 296(b) of BNS, as follows :-"296. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."14.Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out. 15.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 296(b) of BNS is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 296(b) of BNS. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offense under Section 296(b) of BNS. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. It is not at all attract the offence under Section 296(b) of IPC as against the petitioner. 16. In order to attract the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) of BNS, 2023 there must be some injury sustained by the students, However, in this case no such injury has been reported. To establish an offence under Section 323 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infirmity; that the accused caused the said bodily pain; and that the accused did so intentionally or with the knowledge that hurt would be caused in the process. Similarly, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, would be attracted only if unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused to a child by a 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025person having charge or is of control over the child either by assaulting, abandoning, exposing, wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such acts to be committed. The essential ingredients to attract these offences are completely absent in the case on hand, Therefore, the offence under Section 115(2) of BNS is not at all attracted against the petitioner. 17. In order to attract the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (CARE and PROTECTION of CHILDREN)Act, 2015. The relevant paragraph is extracted here:“ 75. Punishment for Cruelty to Child- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organization, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may be extend upto five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakh rupees;Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakh rupees.Therefore, there is no ingredient to attract the Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act. 18. That apart, the petitioner being a teacher, is entitled to exercise limited force on students to maintain discipline or to correct their behaviour. Students are sent to the school not only for academic education but also to learn discipline. Therefore, the teachers can impose reasonable punishments when necessary for maintaining discipline or correcting student. Mere discipling of school students does not amount any cruelty. Hence, the complaint filed by the 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025second respondent against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. 24.04.2025VvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Dhally Police Station, Cr.No.250 of 2024 Tiruppur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.8885 of 2025 24.04.202512/12
Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8885 of 2025V.Ranjithkumar ... Petitioner/sole accusedVs.1. The Inspector of Police, Dhally Police Station, Cr.No.250 of 2024 Tiruppur District.2.Riyaz Ahmed basha ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the criminal case in CC.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Darshsan for Mr.J.BalagopalFor Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) No appearance for R21/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025 O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II Udumalpet. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent who is working as a District Children Protection Officer at District Child Protection Unit, District Collector Office, Tiruppur District. The second respondent has received a complaint via Child Helpline on 16.11.2024, alleging that the petitioner has beaten his class students, abused them in filthy language and forced them to purchase liquor. 3. Based on the complaint, he has visited the School viz., Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamuthur, Tiruppur, to conduct enquiry with XII-C Students on 18.11.2024. During enquiry, the students had complained that the petitioner used to beat them and he also gossips about other teachers. Thereby, the petitioner has caused disturbance to the students' study. s2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 20254. As per enquiry report, the second respondent lodged a complaint and same has been registered by the first respondent police in Cr.No.250 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children),2015. After the completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.63 of 2025.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one of the students called the District Children Protection Officer at District, Child Protection Unit, District Collector Officer, Tiruppur District through Toll Free Number.1098. Upon receiving the complaint, the second respondent has visited the petitioner's school and enquired with the students about the issues. Based on the enquiry, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the first respondent had not examined any of the parents of the children or Teachers or 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025the Management of the School. The first respondent had just recorded the statements from the students and has filed a final report. Even according to the students, the petitioner used to beat them on their hands and gossip during class hours about other teachers. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police reiterated the prosecution case submitted that, the students have spoken about the overt act of the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 296(b) and115(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015. 8. Though notice was served on the second respondent and his name was also printed in the cause-list, no one appeared before this Court neither in person nor through counsel.9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 10. A perusal of records reveals that the first respondent police did not enquire any of the teachers, school management, Head 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025Master, or parents of the students who were allegedly beaten by the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no complaint from any students or their parents. 11. The second respondent received one anonymous call . Upon receiving the said call, the second respondent visited petitioner's School and has enquired with the 12th Standard '' C '' Section Students. He did not enquire the petitioner who was working as the Assistant Head Master and English Class Teacher for 12th Standard '' C '' Section Students of Gandhi Kala Nilayam Higher Secondary School, Pungamuthur, Tiruppur District. 12. A perusal of statements recorded from the students also reveals that there is not even a whisper of an allegation that the petitioner beat them with any weapon or abused them with filthy language. The Statements merely indicates that the petitioner used to beat them with hands and gossip about other teachers during class hours. Therefore, there is absolutely no ingredients to attract any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 202513. In order to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 296(b) of BNS, as follows :-"296. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."14.Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out. 15.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 296(b) of BNS is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 296(b) of BNS. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offense under Section 296(b) of BNS. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. It is not at all attract the offence under Section 296(b) of IPC as against the petitioner. 16. In order to attract the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) of BNS, 2023 there must be some injury sustained by the students, However, in this case no such injury has been reported. To establish an offence under Section 323 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infirmity; that the accused caused the said bodily pain; and that the accused did so intentionally or with the knowledge that hurt would be caused in the process. Similarly, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, would be attracted only if unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused to a child by a 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025person having charge or is of control over the child either by assaulting, abandoning, exposing, wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such acts to be committed. The essential ingredients to attract these offences are completely absent in the case on hand, Therefore, the offence under Section 115(2) of BNS is not at all attracted against the petitioner. 17. In order to attract the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (CARE and PROTECTION of CHILDREN)Act, 2015. The relevant paragraph is extracted here:“ 75. Punishment for Cruelty to Child- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organization, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may be extend upto five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakh rupees;Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakh rupees.Therefore, there is no ingredient to attract the Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act. 18. That apart, the petitioner being a teacher, is entitled to exercise limited force on students to maintain discipline or to correct their behaviour. Students are sent to the school not only for academic education but also to learn discipline. Therefore, the teachers can impose reasonable punishments when necessary for maintaining discipline or correcting student. Mere discipling of school students does not amount any cruelty. Hence, the complaint filed by the 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025second respondent against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. 24.04.2025VvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Dhally Police Station, Cr.No.250 of 2024 Tiruppur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.8885 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.8885 of 2025 24.04.202512/12