(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet dated 07.12.2025 in C.C.No.3581 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 232 and 351(3) of BNS on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as illegal.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.3581 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli District, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein, the petitioner is charged with the offences under Sections 296(b), 232 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.348 of 2020, wherein he is charged with the offence under Sections 450, 294(b), 307, 302, and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3. The allegation is that the petitioner is said to have threatened and abused one of the witnesses at about 10.45 a.m, on 07.12.2025. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that he had shown an aruval to the defacto complainant and threatened him that he should not give evidence as against him. In case, if evidence is given, he would commit murder of the defacto complainant.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defacto complainant is his sister's husband and already a partition suit has ended in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the present false allegation has been lodged as against him. He further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in front of the house and therefore, Section 296(b) of IPC would not get attracted. He further submitted that there is no allegation of attack upon the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant has not been injured in the said case. In such circumstances, invoking Section 351 (3) of IPC also would not get attracted. He further submitted that while he was in custody in the present case, the evidence of the defacto complainant has been recorded in Crime No.348 of 2025.

5. Thought the second respondent/defacto complainant has been served on 09.04.2026 and his name was also printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel. Therefore, this Court is constrained to decide the issue on merits after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

6. As per the charge sheet, the petitioner is said to have threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences showing an Aruval that he should not depost before the criminal Court in Crime No.348 of 2025 and also abused him.

7. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 SCC online SC 1347 in (Mani @ Subramaniyam Vs.State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police), while considering the invocation of Section 294 (b), in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 it has been held as follows:

                   “16.In the present case, during altercation, the appellant allegedly uttered that: “Hey Motherfucker! You son of a whore! Are you coming in support of your elder sister’s son? Just fuck off, you ‘Kurutha’ Fucker’…”. It is this which is sought to be invoked under Section 294(b) of the IPC. Going by the version of PW-1 himself, the words and verbal slang used by the appellant were, at best, abusive or vulgar in nature. The Collins English Dictionary defines the word “abusive” as a language which ‘is extremely rude and insulting’13. Whereas the word ‘vulgar’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “rude and likely to upset or anger people, especially by referring to sex and the body in an unpleasant way”14. These definitions clearly show that words may be insulting, offensive or unpleasant without necessarily being obscene in law.

                   17. For an utterance to be considered obscene, it must be shown that it was lascivious, appealed to prurient interests and had the tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of those who are exposed to it. Tested on this anvil, even if all the allegations levelled in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted to be true in entirety, the same cannot be held to be obscene. Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC for there being nothing on record to show that they had any one or all three elements referred to hereinabove. Further, it is nobody’s case that use of such words caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory ingredient of the Section, much less to the complainant. In absence thereof, we find that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out.”

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment while considering Section 506(ii) of IPC, in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held as follows:

                   “18. Furthermore, we find it equally difficult to sustain the conviction under Section 506 (ii) IPC. For an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out under Section 506 IPC, it must be shown that there was an act of: (1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested and (2) Such threat was intentional; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. [See: Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P.15]

                   19. In the present case, the prosecution seeks to establish the charge of criminal intimidation primarily on the basis of the statement of PW-1 contained in the FIR, which reads as: “… Subramaniam intimidated me waving the billhook at me saying ‘You had escaped this day. I will not rest until I hack you’ and flung the billhook right there and left the place”. The same position was reiterated by PW-3 and PW-4 in their testimonies. However, in our considered view, even if the aforesaid allegation is accepted in its entirety, the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC is not borne out. Mere use of threatening words during the course of an altercation, without the proof that it was intended to cause alarm to the complainant or to compel him to do or omit to do any act, would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this provision. Apart from the bald assertion referred to above, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant intended to cause alarm to PW-1 so as to criminally intimidate him. Thus, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 506(ii) IPC.”

9. In the present case, the petitioner is said to have abused the defacto complainant in front of his house. It is only an abuse and it cannot be construed to be use of obscene word. That apart, even though he is said to have threatened the defacto complainant with an Aruval, the Hon'ble Supereme Court has held that mere use of threatening words during the course of altercation, without the proof that it was intended to cause alaram to the complainant or to compel him to do or omit to do any act, would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this provision.

10. Further the petitioner has also been charged with the offence Section 232 of IPC. A perusal of the said Section reveals that if any one is threatened to give false evidence, the said Section can be invoked. In the present case there is no such allegation. Therefore the petitioner cannot be charged with reference to the Sections 296(b), 232 and 351(3) of BNS.

11. In view of the above said legal position, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law and therefore, the charge sheet in C.C.No.3581 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli District, stands quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.