Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SRIMATHY Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9626 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7758 & 7759 of 2023 J.Santhosh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamilnadu rep., by The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukottai District. (Crime No.46 of 2020) 2.Adaikkappan ...Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.L.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pudukkottai and quash the same as against the petitioner as devoid of merits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian For R1 : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate(Crl. side) For R2 :No appearance 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 ORDER The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.L.No.37 of 2022 on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Pudukottai for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 505(1)(c) of Indian Penal Code and 67 Information Technology Act, 2000 in respect of the petitioner alone. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had received a voice message on 29.02.2020 at about 10.00 pm from a mobile number 7550301932 wherein an unknown person had abused him as well as his caste which had created communal disharmony. Hence the complaint and the FIR was registered on 01.03.2020 under Crime No.46 of 2020 sections 294(b), 505(1)(c) of Indian Penal Code and 67 Information Technology Act, 2000 against unknown person. Further the prosecution had conducted an enquiry wherein it is stated that a WhatsApp group was formed among the people interested in Manjuvirattu, Vadamaadu etc. During an event at Dindigul there was quarrel between the bull tamers and bull owners, even though the same was pacified by the committee, there was exchange of abusive words against each other in the said WhatsApp group. Subsequently it is alleged that the petitioner who is using the said mobile number has sent abusive defamatory voice messages against the defacto complainant and his community, hence the case is 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 filed. 3. The primary contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has not whispered about the defamatory or the derogatory or inflammatory words alleged to have been spelled by the petitioner in his voice message and had relied on the FIR and charge sheet. On perusing the FIR and the charge sheet it is seen that the charge sheet is replica of FIR. Further it is seen that the charge sheet only states bald allegation only and the same is extracted hereunder: “fle;j 29/02/2020 Mk; njjp 21/00 kzpf;F ,s";rpwhh; re;njhc;&Fkhh; vd;gth; cgnahfg;gLj;Jk; 7550301932 vd;w vz;zpy; ,Ue;J thl;mg; FU:g;gpy; te;j tha;!; bkn!i$ nfl;l ,t;tHf;fpd; thjp ,s";rpwhh; re;njhc;&Fkhh; vd;gtUf;F bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L nfl;Ls;shh;/ mjd; gpwF ,s";rpwhh; re;njhc;&Fkhh; thjpiaa[k; thjp rhh;e;j Kj;jiuah; $hjpia gw;wpa[k; Mghrkhft[k; mtJhwhft[k; ngrp kd cisr;ry; Vw;gLj;jpa[k; ,U rK:f';fSf;F ,ilna mikjpia rPh;Fiyf;Fk; tifapy; gpur;rpidfis cz;lhf;Fk; tifapYk; bray;gl;Ls;shh;/” The contents it would clearly establish that the charge sheet is bald and there is no specific all allegations. Further the defacto complainant had not stated the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 exact phrase or words uttered in the voice message. 4. The next contention of the petitioner is that said bald allegations would not attract the ingredients of the section 294(b). The said section would be attracted if a person sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. When the charge sheet is not stating the exact words or phrase, then the said section would not be attracted. Further it ought to be uttered in public place. The voice message forwarded in WhatsApp cannot be taken as uttered in public place. Therefore, the said section would not be attracted. 5. The next contention of the petitioner is that the ingredients of the section 505(i)(c) are not there in the alleged crime. The said section would be attracted if any person makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community. As held supra the charge sheet has not stated the content of the voice message, hence it cannot come to conclusion that the petitioner circulated message which would incite the persons of the community. Therefore, the said section would not be 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 attracted. For the same reason the section 67 of Information Technology Act also not applicable. 6. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR and Charge Sheet and accordingly quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 22.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PJL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukottai District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9626 of 2023 S.SRIMATHY., J. PJL Crl.O.P(MD).No.9626 of 2023 22.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis