Justice Victoria L Gowri noted that even after completion of the investigation by police, the allegations remained vague and unsupported by necessary particulars. (File Image)
Court finds allegations vague
Justice Gowri observed that although the court would not ordinarily accept the defence version as gospel truth at the quashing stage, it was duty-bound to examine whether the prosecution materials themselves disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged.
The judge noted that even after completion of the investigation, the allegations remained vague and unsupported by necessary particulars.
The Madras High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the basic ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the accused.
“Mere questioning, protest or verbal altercation with a police official, without the necessary ingredients of the penal offences alleged, cannot automatically be criminalised under serious provisions of the IPC,” the Madras High Court observed.
Story continues below this ad
Case stemmed from new year day incident
- According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 1, 2023, when the de facto complainant, a police officer, was allegedly performing official duties.
- The police claimed that the two accused abused him in obscene language, wrongfully restrained him, obstructed him from discharging official functions and threatened him with dire consequences.
- Based on the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 294(b) (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place), 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 506(ii) (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
- After completing the investigation, police filed a final report before the judicial magistrate, Paramakudi.
Petitioners alleged case was counterblast
- The petitioners, however, told the court that the case was a retaliation for questioning police conduct.
- According to them, Thomas had attended the New Year Holy Mass at Infant Jesus Church in Ulaganathapuram, Paramakudi, during the early hours of January 1, 2023.
- After the mass concluded around 1.30am, he and his friends celebrated by cutting a cake outside the church.
- Police personnel, including the de facto complainant, allegedly arrived at the spot, conducted inquiries and later dispersed those gathered there.
- The petitioners claimed that later that morning, the police officer came alone to Thomas’s house without any summons, notice or enquiry slip and took him for questioning in connection with an alleged theft reported about 800 metres away from the church.
- Thomas denied any involvement and questioned the legality of being taken for interrogation without due process. Lingabalan also questioned the police action.
- They argued that the criminal case was subsequently lodged only to justify the allegedly illegal detention and interrogation.
No obscene words mentioned
While examining the charge under Section 294(b) IPC, the court noted that the prosecution had failed to specify the actual obscene words allegedly uttered by the accused.
Justice Gowri said a general allegation that a person used filthy or obscene language was insufficient and that the exact words must be stated to determine whether they were legally obscene.
The Madras High Court further found no material to show that the alleged words annoyed any member of the public.
As a result, it held that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC was not made out.
Story continues below this ad
No case of wrongful restraint
The Madras High Court also found the allegation under Section 341 IPC unsustainable.
It noted that the prosecution had not explained where the police officer was restrained, how he was prevented from moving, for how long he was restrained or what specific overt acts were committed by each accused.
“A mere exchange of words, questioning of authority, or protest against an enquiry would not by itself constitute wrongful restraint,” the Madras High Court said.
Questioning police not assault
On the allegation under Section 353 IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force against a public servant, the court stressed that the mere fact that the complainant was a police officer did not automatically attract the provision.
Story continues below this ad
The prosecution had not attributed any specific act of assault or criminal force to either accused.
Justice Gowri held that verbal protests, resistance by words or questioning the legality of police action could not, by themselves, amount to assault or criminal force.
Even if the petitioners questioned the police officer during an enquiry, such conduct could not be stretched to attract Section 353 IPC, the Madras High Court said.
Criminal intimidation charge also fails
The Madras High Court similarly rejected the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.
Story continues below this ad
The judge observed that for aggravated criminal intimidation to be established, the threat must be real, grave and capable of causing alarm.
In the present case, the prosecution had neither disclosed the exact words allegedly spoken nor shown how the complainant was alarmed by the alleged threat.
Consequently, the Madras High Court held that the offence was not made out.
Court criticises mechanical filing of final report
The court said the final report appeared to have been filed mechanically without properly examining whether the statutory ingredients of the offences had been satisfied.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Gowri noted that there was no specific obscene utterance for Section 294(b), no clear obstruction for Section 341, no assault or criminal force for Section 353, and no grave threat for Section 506(ii).
The judge said that compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial despite such deficiencies would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Proceedings quashed
Holding that the prosecution failed to disclose the essential ingredients of any of the offences alleged, the Madras High Court exercised its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
It quashed the proceedings pending against Thomas alias Dhamas and Lingabalan before the judicial magistrate, Paramakudi.
Justice Victoria L Gowri noted that even after completion of the investigation by police, the allegations remained vague and unsupported by necessary particulars. (File Image)