2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 and CRL MP Nos.9173 and 9177 of 2023 1. K.Thirumalai aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Kannan, Keezhkuppam Village, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District. 2. K.Rajasekar aged about 45 years, S/o.Late Kannan, Keezhkuppam Village, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ...Petitioners/Accused Vs 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Keezhkuppam Police Station, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District. (Crime No.315/2021). 2. B.Malar W/o.Balasubramaniyan, North Kattukottai, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ Keezhkuppam Village, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ...Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in STC.No.131 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I at Kallakurichi and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Vijayakumar for Mr.S.Ramajayam For Respondents: Mr.A.Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 R2 – Served No Appearance ORDER The petition is to quash the impugned final report filed for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). 2. The allegation in the Final Report is that the petitioners/accused owned lands abutting the land belonging to the de-facto https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ complainant/second respondent; that on 07.06.2021, the petitioners had caused damage to the PVC pipeline which supplied water to the land of the de-facto complainant; that when the de-facto complainant questioned the petitioners, the petitioners abused her in filthy language and also threatened her of dire consequences and thus committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Mr.V.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, could not constitute the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC, as the ingredients of those offences have not been made out; and that the offence under Section 427 of the IPC was also not made out since there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property and a civil dispute is sought to be converted to a criminal case. He would further point out that the FIR was registered on 07.06.2021 and it was made to appear that the Final Report was filed as early as on 09.06.2021 only to defeat the petition filed to quash the FIR; that though the Final Report is dated 09.06.2021, it was received by the Court only in the year 2023; and that the FIR itself was despatched to the learned Magistrate one month after https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ the date of registration. He made the above submissions to impress upon this Court that the prosecution is malafide. 4. Heard, Mr.A.Amarnath, the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side), who submitted that the points raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition and if the question as to whether there is mischief and as to whether the offence was committed in the land belonging to the petitioners or to the de-facto complainant is factual and it is for the trial Court to consider the disputed questions of fact and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. 5. Though notice has been served on the de-facto complainant/second respondent and her name is printed in today’s cause list, none has entered appearance on her behalf. 6. The allegation against the petitioners, as stated above, is that, in a land dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, the petitioners are said to have caused damage to the PVC pipeline, which had supplied water to the de-facto complainant’s land. The petitioners are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ said to have abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and also threatened her of dire consequences. However, the allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 294 (b) of the IPC. It is well settled that in order to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, the accused must have done any obscene act or uttered, recited or sung any obscene song in or near any public place to the annoyance of others. In this regard, we may refer to the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 which squarely apply to the facts of this case: “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. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ 9.To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to 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.'' 7. As regards the offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC, it is well settled that unless the threat is real, it would not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. The allegations do not suggest that the threat was real to attract the offence of criminal intimidation. The observation of this Court in Noble Mohandass vs. State, reported in 1989 Cri.Lj 669 which are extracted below squarely apply to the facts of this case: “7. ..... Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. .....” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ Therefore, the allegation in this case does not attract the offence of criminal intimidation. 8. Even as regards the offence under Section 427 of the IPC, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a Civil Suit filed by the petitioners’ father in O.S.No.754 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, against the family members of the de-facto complainant; that there was a decree in his favour and a civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal colour. 9. The alleged damage to the PVC pipes was in the land belonging to the de-facto complainant. There is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land where the alleged damage is said to have taken place. The facts of the case suggest that the complaint stems out of a civil dispute, and there were proceedings before the Civil Court between the parties. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ 10. Though the value of the alleged damage is said to be Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only), the first respondent has not collected any evidence to establish the value of the damage. 11. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in directing the petitioners to face the trial, and therefore, the impugned final report is liable to be quashed and hence quashed. 12. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The final report in STC No.131 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 at Kallakurichi is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ To 1. The Sub Inspector Of Police Keezhkuppam Police Station, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3125 CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 __________ SUNDER MOHAN J. dk CRL OP No.14680 of 2023 and CRL MP Nos.9173 and 9177 of 2023 24-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis