Senior Counsel relied upon the orders passed by this Court in the case of v. State of Tamil Nadu and another in Crl.O.P

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 13.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.O.P.(MD).Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025andCrl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3230 to 3233 , 3242 , 3243 , 6354, 6356 and 6357 of 2025Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4540 of 20251.M.Jeyakumar2.B.Veeravel... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2Vs.1.State through, The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No. 200/2024)... 1st Respondent/Complainant2.V.Arunkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.... 2nd Respondent/Defacto ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in STC No.800 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District in Crime No.200 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4541 of 2025M.Jeyakumar... Petitioner/AccusedVs.1.State through, The Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.23/2024) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant2.B.Navamani, Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.... 2nd Respondent/Defacto ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in STC No.655 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District in Crime No.23 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4542 of 20251.M.Jeyakumar2.R.Periyasamy (Ponthili)3.P.K.Ramkumar (Ram)4.B.Veeravel... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4Vs.1.State of Tamil Nadu through, The Inspector of Police, Irukkangudi Police Station, Irukkangudi, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.80/2024)... 1st Respondent/Complainant2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 20252.M.Mooventhan, Sub Inspector of Police, Irukkangudi Police Station, Irukkangudi, Virudhunagar District.... 2nd Respondent/Defacto ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in STC No.654 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District in Crime No.80 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.For Petitioners: Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Lenin PrabuFor R-1: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaramin all cases Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDERThese Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the impugned final reports in S.T.C.Nos.800, 655 and 654 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District, which were filed for the offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The gist of the allegations in the final reports is that on 01.07.2024, the petitioners had erected banners, in public places near the bus stand, which was open to public view and which are likely to provoke breach of peace and thus committed the aforesaid offences.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 20253. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the posters affixed/exhibited by the petitioners suggest that the petitioners were aggrieved by certain actions/decisions taken by the Government and that they intend to protest against such actions; and that there is nothing in the advertisements to suggest that they would fall within the definition of 'objectionable advertisement' in Section 2(b) of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the orders passed by this Court in the case of Suresh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14670 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 and Venkatesh Vs. State reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 37 in support of his submissions.4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that the posters affixed/exhibited by the petitioners had the tendency to provoke breach of peace; that therefore, the question as to whether the posters would fall within the definition of Section 2(b) of the Act cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition and sought for dismissal of the quash petitions.5. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:“3. Penalty for disfigurement by objectionable advertisements.- Whoever affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public view any objectionable advertisement shall be punished with 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.”From the above definition, it is clear that the main ingredient of the offence is that the advertisement must be exhibited in any place open to public view and it must be objectionable as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 2(b) reads as follows:“2.(b). Objectionable advertisement” means any advertisement which is likely to-(i) incite any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violence; or(ii) seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces from his allegiance or his duty, or prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the discipline of any such force; or(iii) incite any section of the citizens of India to acts of violence against any other section of the citizens of India; or which- (iv) is deliberately intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of India by insulting or blaspheming or profaning the religion or the religious beliefs of that class; or(v) is grossly indecent, or is scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail;(vi) obstructs pedestrian traffic;Explanation. - An advertisement shall not be deemed to be objectionable merely because words or signs or visible representations are used-(1) expressing disapprobation or criticism of any law or of any policy or administrative action of the Government with a view toobtain its alteration or redress by lawful means;(2) criticising any social or religious practices without malicious 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025intention and with an honest view to promote social or religious reform of social justice;”6. The impugned proceedings state that the petitioners had exhibited the advertisements knowing that it is likely to cause breach of peace. This Court had perused the advertisements said to have been made by the petitioners. The advertisements only state that the petitioners were aggrieved by certain actions of the Government and that if the Government does not change its decision, they would protest against the action of the Government. The posters do not even suggest that they were intended to provoke breach of peace. 7. Be that as it may. In order to fall within the definition of Section 2(b) of the Act, the advertisement must not be merely to provoke breach of peace, it must fall under any of the aforesaid clauses, namely, 2(b)(i) to (vi). This Court had an occasion to consider this provision in the case of Venkatesh Vs. State reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 37 and by considering the explanation to Section 2(b) of the Act, had held that expressing its disapprobation or criticism of any policy of the Government cannot be said to be objectionable. In the present case, the act of the petitioners would squarely fall within the explanation to 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioners.8. Accordingly, the impugned final reports are quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.13.11.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoLm/ars 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4540 to 4542 of 2025SUNDER MOHAN, J.Lm/arsTo:1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.2.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Irukkangudi Police Station, Irukkangudi, Virudhunagar District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.4540 to 4542 of 202513.11.20258/8