The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two men accused of obstructing and threatening a police officer, holding that the prosecution failed to disclose the basic ingredients required to sustain the offences alleged against them.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Thomas @ Dhamas and Lingabalan, who had sought quashing of the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No. 2 of 2023 registered by Paramakudi Taluk Police Station in Ramanathapuram district. Police alleged that on January 1, 2023, the petitioners abused a police officer using obscene language, wrongfully restrained him, obstructed him from performing official duties, and threatened him.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners, however, contended that the complaint was filed as a reaction to their objections over an allegedly improper police inquiry relating to a theft case. They claimed that one of them had been taken for questioning without any summons or notice and that the criminal case was later registered to justify that action.
After examining the final report and prosecution materials, the Court found significant deficiencies in the allegations.
On the charge of using obscene language, Justice Gowri noted that the prosecution had failed to specify the exact words allegedly spoken.
“The Court must be able to see whether the words attributed to the accused are obscene in the legal sense,” the judge observed. Without mentioning the actual words or showing that any member of the public was annoyed by them, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC could not stand.
Regarding wrongful restraint, the Court found no material showing that the police officer had been physically prevented from moving in any direction.
The judge further held that merely questioning or protesting against police action cannot by itself amount to wrongful restraint.
On the allegation of obstructing a public servant under Section 353 IPC, the Court emphasized that the law requires assault or use of criminal force.
“Mere questioning, protest or verbal altercation with a police official” cannot automatically attract serious criminal provisions, the Court said. It found no specific allegation of assault or criminal force by either petitioner.
The Court also found the criminal intimidation charge unsustainable, observing that the prosecution had not disclosed the exact threat allegedly made or shown that it caused any real alarm to the complainant.
Then bench concluded that even after completion of the investigation, the prosecution materials did not establish the essential ingredients of any of the offences alleged.
“The criminal law cannot be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action,” the Court observed while clarifying that public servants remain entitled to protection when genuine obstruction or intimidation is established.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the Court quashed the criminal case pending in C.C. No. 209 of 2023 against the two petitioners.
Case Details:
Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1289 of 2026
Judge: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
Decision Date: June 1, 2026
