Madras High Court
Vennila vs State Represented By on 24 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.12586 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 12586 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8361 and 8362 of 2025
Vennila .... Petitioner
Vs
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Kambainallur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.212 of 2023).
2.S.Viyasar .... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating
to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.21 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District and to quash the
same in respect of the petitioner herein is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.12586 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2023 at around 8:15
PM, a physical altercation took place at Senguttai Village, Dharmapuri
District, between the second respondent and their neighbors. During the
incident, the second respondent was verbally abused with filthy language
by the petitioner and was assaulted with sticks by one Suresh, Ramesh,
and Parthiban, who are all the brothers of the petitioner, thereby causing
bleeding and internal injuries. His wife Kavya, brother Vignesh, and
sister-in-law Ranjitha were also injured. The said Ranjitha was pushed
and her clothing was damaged. That apart one Selvi and Salman were
also involved in this incident. The said Ramesh and Suresh allegedly
issued threats to the family. All victims received treatment at
Kambainallur Government Hospital. A case was registered in Crime No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
212 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323,
324, 354(A), and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the
first respondent filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District and the same was taken
cognizance in C.C.No.21 of 2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to prior enmity
between the families. It was argued that the petitioner was not at all
present at the scene of occurrence and has been roped in with general
allegations, without any specific overt act attributed to her. The learned
counsel further submitted that even as per the FIR and the statement of
the second respondent, there is no material indicating the direct
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Hence, continuation
of proceedings as against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the
process of law. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
quash petition and submitted that the investigation has clearly revealed
the presence and involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the
offence. The final report, along with the statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C, disclose sufficient material to proceed with the
case. The injuries sustained by the second respondent and others
corroborate the prosecution version. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this
petition.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this
Court.
6. On perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court finds
that there are specific allegations made as against the petitioner, and the
investigation has gathered prima facie evidence indicating her
involvement in the alleged incident. The plea of alibi or non-presence at
the scene of occurrence is a matter of defence, which can be established
only during trial. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the proceedings, as the petitioner has not made out a case for quashing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
the proceeding under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
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. (Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019),
while dealing with a petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings,
held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the
statements of witnesses and record a finding that there were
inconsistencies in their statements, and therefore, no prima facie case
was made out against the accused. Such an exercise can be done only by
the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits or by the Appellate
Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order. The charge
sheet having been laid on the basis of inconsistent statements under
Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not a
ground for quashing at the pre-trial stage.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
Investigation vs. Arvind Khanna (Criminal Appeal No.1572 of 2019,
dated 17.10.2019), held that the High Courts cannot record findings on
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court during trial. Therefore, this
Court has no power to consider 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 Criminal Appeal No.1817 of 2019 in the case of
M. Jayanthi vs. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., held that while considering a
petition for quashing a complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not
embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All
that the Court should examine is whether the allegations in the complaint
form the basis of the ingredients constituting the offences complained of.
Further, the Court can also examine whether the preconditions required
for taking cognizance have been complied with, and whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in their entirety,
would constitute the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
disprove the allegations is a matter to be determined during trial.
10. Further, this Court cannot, at this stage, observe that the
initiation of criminal proceedings is malicious. Whether the proceedings
are malicious or not is a matter to be considered only at the conclusion of
the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained for quashing the entire
proceedings at this stage.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District. The petitioner is
at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court. The personal
appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be
represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However,
the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing
of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and
at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is directed to complete
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kambainallur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
shk
Crl.O.P.No. 12586 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8361 and 8362 of 2025
24.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 12:52:44 pm )
