The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men, holding that merely questioning the legality of police action cannot constitute a criminal offence unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly established. The Court found the accusations vague and legally insufficient.
The Madras High Court has ruled that simply questioning the legality of police action cannot be treated as a criminal offence unless the basic ingredients of the specific offences are clearly established. On June 1, 2026, it quashed criminal proceedings against two men accused of abusing, restraining, obstructing, and threatening a police officer, noting that the allegations were unclear and did not disclose the essential elements required for the offences invoked.
A Bench led by Justice L. Victoria Gowri passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Thomas @ Dhamas and Lingabalan seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.
The case was registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 353, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (equivalent to Sections 296, 126(2), 132, and 351 of the BNS, respectively).
According to the prosecution, on January 1, 2023, when the police officer was performing official duties, the accused allegedly abused him in obscene language, wrongfully restrained him, obstructed him from discharging his duty, and threatened him with serious consequences.
The petitioners claimed that they had attended New Year Holy Mass at Infant Jesus Church, Paramakudi, and were later questioned by the police in connection with an alleged theft.
They alleged that:
- the first petitioner was taken from his home for questioning without summons or notice, and
- the criminal case was filed only after they questioned how the inquiry was being conducted.
The High Court observed that the prosecution did not specify the exact obscene words attributed to the accused. Justice Gowri noted that a broad allegation that someone used “filthy” or “obscene” language is not enough to satisfy Section 294(b), IPC.
READ ALSO: “Prima facie, this is illegal”: Supreme Court Slams UP Police
The Court said that in matters involving obscene utterances, the actual words must be provided so that the court can determine whether they are legally obscene. It further noted that there was no material showing that any member of the public was annoyed by the alleged language.
On this basis, the Court held that:
“a vague allegation of abuse cannot be permitted to mature into a criminal trial”
Regarding the wrongful restraint charge under Section 341 IPC, the Court found no material indicating that the complainant was prevented from moving in any direction an essential requirement under the provision. It also noted that the prosecution failed to clarify:
- where the officer was allegedly restrained,
- how the restraint was carried out,
- for how long it continued, and
- what specific act was committed by each accused.
As for the charge under Section 353 IPC (assault/criminal force against a public servant), Justice Gowri held that merely questioning a police officer or protesting police action does not amount to assault or criminal force.
The Court observed:
“The criminal law cannot be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action,”
While acknowledging that public servants carrying out lawful duties deserve protection from obstruction, assault, and intimidation, the Court stressed that such offences must be established with specific facts and evidence.
The Court also found the charge of criminal intimidation unsustainable, because no exact threat was described, and there was nothing to indicate that the complainant was genuinely alarmed.
The Court concluded that even after investigation, the allegations remained:
“vague, omnibus and unsupported by necessary particulars”
It further noted that the final report appeared to have been filed mechanically without examining whether the statutory requirements of the offences were met. Holding that continuation of the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against both accused.
Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE