Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M.Karunanithi vs The State Rep. By Its
2025 Latest Caselaw 40 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 40 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2025

Madras High Court

M.Karunanithi vs The State Rep. By Its on 1 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
                                        Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED: 01.04.2025

                                                                 CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                         Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525,
                                         9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

                     M.Karunanithi                                                       ... Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps

                                                                      Vs

                     1. The State Rep. by its,
                        The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        Commercial Crime Investigation Wing-C.I.D.,
                        Villupuram, Villupuram District.

                     2. The Inspector of Police,
                        Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
                        Villupuram (Crime No.3/2005)

                     3. S.Subramanian
                        The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
                        Tindivanam, Villupuram District.          ... Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps



                     Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under 528 of BNSS.,
                     2023, to call for the records and quash the C.C.No.22, 20, 21, 19, 18, 17, 13,
                     16, 15 and 14 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at
                     Tindivanam, Villupuram District.




                     Page 1 of 8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm )
                                          Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

                                        For Petitioner        : Mr.R.Thanjan
                                        in all Crl.O.Ps

                                        For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath,
                                        in all Crl.O.Ps   Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1 & R2)


                                                         COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.22, 20, 21, 19, 18, 17, 13, 16, 15, and 14 of 2011, respectively, on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

2. This Court already disposed the quash petitions by order dated

14.08.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.17972 of 2023, etc., batch.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second

quash petitions are maintainable on the change of circumstances. Since this

Court already specifically directed the Trial Court to complete the trial

within a stipulated time, and even then, the Trial Court failed to complete

the same. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has

not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base,

the second respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2005 for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

offences under Section 120(b) r/w Sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 477(a) r/w

Section 109 of IPC, as against the petitioner, and the same has been taken

cognizance in C.C.No.22, 20, 21, 19, 18, 17, 13, 16, 15, and 14 of 2011,

respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Tindivanam,

Villupuram District. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first

and second respondents submitted that all the witnesses have been examined

and now, the matter has been posted for the Investigating Officer's evidence.

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the quash petitions.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first and second

respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that there are specific

allegations as against the petitioner in Crime No.3 of 2005 for the offences

punishable under Sections 120(b) r/w Sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 477(a)

r/w Section 109 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

respondent filed final reports and the same have been taken cognizance in

C.C.No.22, 20, 21, 19, 18, 17, 13, 16, 15 and 14 of 2011 respectively on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Tindivanam, Villupuram District and

it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed

these present petitions.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in

2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar

& Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the

petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts

have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a

finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore,

there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be

done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and

by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final

order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency

statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment

reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated

17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the

disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation

of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no

power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated

02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.

K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for

quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon

an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court

should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form

the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of.

Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking

cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue

the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the

allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e.,

during trial.

10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of

criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is

malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is

required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground

raised by the petitioner to quash the final reports/charge sheets cannot be

entertained to quash the entire proceedings.

11. In view of the above, this Court finds no change in

circumstances to entertain the second quash petitions to quash the entire

proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.22, 20, 21, 19, 18, 17, 13, 16, 15, and 14 of 2011, respectively, on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

12. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.





                                                                                                            01.04.2025
                     Index            : Yes/No
                     Neutral citation : Yes/No
                     Speaking/non-speaking order

                     kv


                     To

                     1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        Commercial Crime Investigation Wing-C.I.D.,
                        Villupuram, Villupuram District.

                     2. The Inspector of Police,
                        Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
                        Villupuram (Crime No.3/2005)

                     3. The Judicial Magistrate No.II at Tindivanam,
                        Villupuram District.

                     4. The Public Prosecutor,
                        High Court, Madras.









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                      ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm )

Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

kv

Crl.O.P.Nos.9476, 9478, 9517, 9523, 9525, 9526, 9528, 9518, 9519 and 9522 of 2025

01.04.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:27:02 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter