High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 11.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025andCrl.M.P.(MD) Nos.15394 & 15396 of 2025N.Murali... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, D-1, Thallakualm (L & O) Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.18 of 2012)2.L.Perumal Junior Reporter, Police Abbreviation Office, Madurai City.... RespondentsPrayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned final report in S.C.No.182 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.C.JeganathanFor R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R_____________Page No. 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025 This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned final report in S.C.No.182 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 124A, 295A, 294(b), 504, 505(2), 505(3) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The gist of the allegation in the final report is that the petitioner, on 21.06.2011 at about 09:50 p.m., participated in a public meeting and made defamatory statements against the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, besides certain Ministers of Tamil Nadu, and thereby promoted hatred against the Ministers and disharmony between two groups, and thus committed the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, would at best suggest that certain defamatory statements were made against the former Chief Minister and the Ministers, which are not in good taste; and that none of the offences alleged are made out. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya and others, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 35, and the judgments of this Court in _____________Page No. 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025Thirumaran v. The State of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai City and another, dated 13.12.2024 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1705 of 2022, and in Tamilisai Soundararajan v. Dhadi K. Karthikeyan, reported in 2021 (3) MWN (Crl.) 159. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the allegations, which are also defamatory, would certainly provoke enmity between two groups of people; and that the question as to whether the allegations would attract the offences alleged cannot be adjudicated in this quash petition, and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The allegations against the petitioner for better understanding are extracted below:“1) n[ayypjh rrpfyhit mizf;f gpbf;Fk; 2) vd;d ele;jpUf;fpwJ? n[ayypjh te;jhy; khw;wk; tUkhk; kapu;jhd; tUk;> vg;gblh khw;wk; tUk;? Ngz;l; rl;il Nghl;L ele;jtd; Nfhl; Nghl;L ele;jhy; khw;wk;> Nfhtdk; $l fl;lhky; mk;kzf; Fz;baha; Nghdhy; Gj;jpRthjPdk;> igj;jpaf;fhuj;jdk; 3) nry;Y}u; uh[P 10 kzpf;F Nghd; gz;zp ehd; gLf;f Nghfl;Lkh Ntz;lhkh mk;khtplk; Nfl;L nrhy; vd;fpwhd;. 4) ej;jk; tp];tehjd; rk;rhuj;ij xOq;fhf itj;jpUf;fpwhah kpd;rhuj;ij xOq;fhf itj;Jf; nfhs; 5) eP xU R+j;jpud; ngw;w gps;is 6) ghu;g;gd ngz;kdpahd n[ayypjh Ml;rpapy; cl;fhu;e;J nfhz;L jkpod; _____________Page No. 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025gbf;f $lhJ vd;W KbT nra;jpUf;fpwhu;fs; 7) ebfu; fl;rp vd;W epidf;fhjPu;fs; njhg;Gspy; gk;guk; tpLfpw fl;rp my;y jpuhtpl Kd;Ndw;f fofk; vd;Wk; filrpahf Nfhksts;sp n[ayypjhTf;F nrhy;fpNwd;. vd;w thu;j;ijfshy; murpd; kPJ ntWg;Gzu;it Vw;gLj;Jk; tpjkhfTk; xU tFg;gpdupd; czu;it jpLf;fpLk; tifapYk; nghJ ,lj;jpy; Mghrkhf Ngrp Mj;jpu%l;bAk; gPjpia tpistpj;Jk; Fw;wk; nra;a J}z;Lk; tpjkhfTk; xU ngz;zpd; khdj;jpw;F gq;fk; tpistpf;Fk; mstpw;Fk; nghJf; $l;l Nkilapy; Ngrpa Fw;wk; Gupe;Js;shu;.”6. The aforesaid allegations would at best suggest that certain irresponsible and defamatory statements were made by the petitioner, which are certainly not in good taste. However, the question is whether those statements would attract the offences alleged. 7. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the punishment of sedition. The main ingredients of the said offence are that words, either spoken or written, used by any person must bring, or attempt to bring, into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government. The allegations, as stated above, are against certain individuals who were holding responsible positions in the Government, and such statements cannot be said to be intended to bring about hatred or contempt against the Government itself. _____________Page No. 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 20258. As regards the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 295A provides for the punishment of deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. In order to attract the offence, the words uttered must insult or attempt to insult any religion or the religious beliefs of any class of persons. There are no such allegations in the final report. 9. As regards the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is well settled that unless the act of the accused and the words uttered by him are obscene, the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 has held as follows: “8. It has to be noted that in the instant case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. _____________Page No. 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 9.To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof of establish that 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 appellants-accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.” The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the case. There is nothing to suggest that the act of the petitioner or the words uttered by him are obscene so as to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 10. The offence under Section 504 of the IPC would be made out only if the petitioner had intentionally insulted and provoked any person intentionally, knowing that it is likely to provoke that person to break the public peace or commit an offence. In the present case, the persons against whom the said statements were made were holding responsible positions, and therefore, the aforesaid statements are not likely to provoke _____________Page No. 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025them to break the public peace or commit an offence.11. As regards the offences under Sections 505(2) and 505(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in order to attract the said offences, the intention of the person making the statements must be to provoke breach of the peace between two sections of people. The allegation, which contains defamatory statements against two individuals, would not amount to an incitement of feelings of one group against other group. Therefore, the offences under Sections 505(2) and 505(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would not be made out. 12. For all the above reasons, the impugned final report is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed, and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.11.11.2025JEN/ARSIndex: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Non-Speaking OrderTo_____________Page No. 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 20251.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Thallakualm (L & O) Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai._____________Page No. 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025Copy To:1.The Special Judge for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai District.2.The Principal Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai._____________Page No. 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025SUNDER MOHAN , J. JEN/ARSCrl.O.P.(MD) No.18636 of 2025 11.11.2025_____________Page No. 10 of 10