Madras High Court
Abdul Kadhar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.6287 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.6287 of 2025
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4565 of 2025
Abdul Kadhar, ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Executive Magistrate
and Tahsildar Court,
Nanguneri,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ervadi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
In L.I.R. No. 8 of 2025. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS to call for the records relating to the summon in Case No.
22/2025 passed by the 1st respondent dated 20.03.2025 Quash the same
and allow this petition.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.6287 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.C. Susikumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction
to the impugned summon in case No. 22 of 2025 passed by the first
respondent, dated 20.03.2025.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that on
22.03.2025, the second respondent served summons from the first
respondent, dated 22.03.2025 for appearance on 25.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m
for taking precautionary action against the petitioner. If the proceedings
initiated under Section 126 of BNSS, show cause notice under Section
130 of BNSS should be issued by the Executive Magistrate, but in the
impugned summon no provision has been mentioned and no substance of
the information is also mentioned. There is no subjective satisfaction
mentioned by the first respondent. Therefore, without any application of
mind, the summon has been issued. Hence, the impugned summons is
liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondents would submit that the second respondent requested the first
respondent to take action under Section 126 of BNSS and based on the
same, the first respondent issued the summons for the appearance of the
petitioner on 25.03.2025 at about 11.00 am. The petitioner, without
responding to the summons, filed this petition. In the summons, they
have not stated anything about the substance of the information.
However, they will issue a fresh summons if necessary by following all
the procedures.
4.Heard both sides and perused the records.
5.On perusal of the summons, it reveals that it was issued under
Section 130 BNSS. As per Section 130 of BNSS, when a Magistrate,
acting under Sections 126 to 129 of BNSS, deems it necessary to require
any person to show cause, he shall make a order in writing, setting forth
the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be
executed, the term for which it has to be in force and the number of
sureties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties. But
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
in this case, no any substance of information was received and the
amount of bond to be executed, the term for which, it has to be in force
and the number of sureties and after consideration of number of
witnesses, have not been mentioned.
6.According to the judgment of this Court in Krishnamoorthi Vs.
The Executive Magistrate and others, the substance of the information
and other requirements under Section 130 of BNSS are mandatory. But
in the impugned summons no any mandatory procedures were followed
by the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned summons is liable to be
quashed.
7.Accordingly, the impugned summons is quashed and this
criminal original petition is allowed with liberty to the first respondent to
issue a fresh summons if requires. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.04.2025
Internet:Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar Court,
Nanguneri,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ervadi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
In L.I.R. No. 8 of 2025.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
P. DHANABAL, J.
LR
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 04:16:19 pm )
