Can't Use Criminal Law To Silence Citizen For Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against 2 Accused Of Abusing Cop

Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the final report was filed in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. The court highlighted that criminal law could not be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action.

“The criminal law cannot be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action. At the same time, public servants discharging lawful duty are entitled to protection from obstruction, assault and intimidation. The decisive question is whether the prosecution materials disclose such obstruction, assault or intimidation in the legal sense. In the present case, they do not,” the court said.

The court said that in the present case the prosecution materials were vague and the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out against the petioners. 

"This Court is conscious that the defence version cannot ordinarily be accepted as gospel truth at the stage of quashment. However, where the prosecution materials themselves are vague and do not disclose the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether the continuation of the proceedings would serve any legitimate purpose.

The substratum of the prosecution appears to be that the petitioners questioned the de-facto complainant during an enquiry. 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 court was hearing a petition filed by two men seeking to quash the cases registered against them for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, and 506(ii) of the IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

As per the prosecution, on January 1, 2023, the petitioners had abused the complainant police officer and obstructed him from discharging his official duty and criminally intimidated him with dire consequences.

Seeking to quash the case, the petitioners submitted that on the said day, they had attended the New Year holy mass situated near their residence. After the mass concluded, the petitioner and his friends cut a cake and celebrated outside the church. At the time, the complainant police officer came to the premises, made an enquiry and sent them to their respective homes.

Later that day, the police came to the house of the petitioner without any summons, notice or enquiry slip and took him into custody. The police took the petitioner to church premises and interrogated him in connection with an alleged theft that occurred around midnight.

The petitioners questioned the police officers and denied involvement in the theft. The petitioners submitted that the present case was lodged only as a counterblast to justify and cover up the earlier illegal detention and coercive interrogation.

The petitioners argued that no specific obscene word had been mentioned to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, no material was available to show wrongful restraint under Section 341 of IPC, no overt act of assault or use of criminal force was alleged to attract Section 353 IPC, no grave, real or imminent threat is disclosed to attract Section 506(ii) IPC. It was argued that the FIR and the final report were vague, omnibus and artificial.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the truth of the allegations could be tested only at the time of trial and the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS should not conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact.

On going through the allegations, the court noted that the ingredients of the sections were not attracted. The court noted that even on going through the final report, there was no clear allegations and making the accused face trial in such a circumstance would amount to abuse of process.

“Investigation has already been completed and a final report has been filed. Therefore, the Court has the benefit of examining not merely the FIR but also the prosecution's final version. Where, even after investigation, the final report does not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged, compelling the accused to face trial would amount to abuse of process. The filing of a final report does not immunise a prosecution from judicial scrutiny under Section 528 BNSS,” the court said.

Thus, the court deemed it fit to allow the plea and quashed the cases against the men.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Sylverster raj

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236

Case No: Crl.OP (MD)No.1289 of 2026