Madras High Court
S.Darathi vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.4842 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4842 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.3140 of 2025
1. S.Darathi
2. S.Kaviarasan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
T-18, Thalambur Police Station,
Pallikaranai Police District,
Tambaram City Police.
2. Dr.T.Pasupathy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in
C.C.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, at Tiruporur, Chengalpattu and quash the proceedings.
For Petitioners : Mr. M.Silambarasan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.4842 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2024, on the file of the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, at Tiruporur, Chengalpattu.
2. The second respondent originally lodged a complaint, and the
same had not been taken up for action by the first respondent. As such,
the second respondent filed a private complaint, and on a perusal of the
materials produced by the second respondent, the Trial Court had taken
cognizance in C.C. No. 41 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 307,
354A, 425, 427, 503, 506, 509, and 511 of IPC. The allegations, as per
the complaint, are that the first accused claimed to be a retired police
officer from the southern district of Tamil Nadu, and the second
respondent's husband offered full support and assistance for the
construction of his house. Accordingly, the first accused had completed
the entire construction by February 2022. When the first accused
attempted to lay an underground three-phase electrical cable to establish
a connection to his newly constructed house, the second respondent's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
husband was asked to bear the entire expenses for the three-phase
connection. If power was given to the first accused's house through an
overhead three-phase EB connection, it would pass in close proximity to
the second respondent's house, causing electrical hazards.
2.1. However, the second respondent's husband did not agree to
the same. Further, the husband of the second respondent also objected to
bringing the overhead cable within close proximity to the second
respondent's house. Therefore, the first accused bore a grudge, and on
04.04.2022, at about 9.00 p.m., he abused the second respondent's
husband by using filthy language and derogatorily referred to their caste
name, with a malafide intention to harass and extract money. Therefore,
the husband of the second respondent lodged a complaint, and an enquiry
was conducted. During the enquiry, the first accused warned, and he
undertook not to cause any disruptions to the second respondent's family
and agreed to install the underground cable at his own expense.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
2.2. While that being so, due to the said enmity, all three accused
persons continued to cause trouble to the second respondent. On
26.11.2023, when the first accused abused the husband of the second
respondent and also assaulted him and all the family members.
Therefore, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first
respondent and was issued C.S.R. No. 519 of 2023. However, there was
no further action, and as such, the second respondent was constrained to
file a private complaint. After recording the statement and on a perusal of
the materials and evidence, the Trial Court had taken cognizance for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 354A, 425, 427, 503, 506, 509,
and 511 of IPC as against the accused persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there
are no specific allegations as against the petitioners, who are arrayed as
A2 and A3, and the entire allegations are only against A1. He would
further submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence he prayed
to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
examined in this case.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the complaint that there are specific allegations
against all the accused persons, in order to attract the offences. After
recording the statement and on a perusal of the materials and evidence,
the Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 354A, 425, 427, 503, 506, 509, and 511 of IPC as against
the accused persons and it is pending. To quash the said criminal
proceeding, the petitioners filed the present petition.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
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.
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 Sectionm528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
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 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 petitioners to quash the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, at Tiruporur,
Chengalpattu. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before
the trial Court. The personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed
with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate
application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at
the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Tiruporur, Chengalpattu.
2. The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
T-18, Thalambur Police Station,
Pallikaranai Police District,
Tambaram City Police.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:09:52 pm )
