Madras High Court
Mohan Karthik vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.8854 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.8854 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5865 & 15318 of 2025
1.Mohan Karthik
2.Rajendiran
3.Senthil Babu
4.Manokaran
5.Dharmalingam
6.Subramaniyam
7.Gopalsamy
8.Selvaraj
9.Palanisamy
10.Elamurugan
11.Sivanathan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Tiruppur.
2.Velusamy ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records relating to the impugned
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.8854 of 2025
FIR in Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 16.10.2024 on the file of the 1st
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vikram Veerasamy
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.P.M.Duraisamy
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.21 of 2024, dated 16.10.2024, on the file of the 1 st respondent
Police, registered for the offences under Sections 295, 379, 457 IPC and
Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss)
Act, 1992.
2.The allegations in the FIR are to the effect that the accused and
other persons, who are unconnected with the administration of the Temple,
unlawfully entered the Temple premises and cut down the old trees found in
the Temple premises and subsequently sold them as firewood. The goods
were transported in a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-AJ-5572. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
also alleged in the FIR that the trees are sacred in nature which were
removed unlawfully. Therefore, an FIR came to be registered in Crime
No.21 of 2024 as against the petitioners and other persons for the offences
under Sections 295, 379, 457 IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public
Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. Challenging the same,
present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.
3.The FIR is sought to be quashed mainly on the ground that some of
the petitioners were appointed by the Trustees of the Temple and there is no
question of theft or criminal wrong committed by them. Further, it is the
contention of the petitioners that the de facto complainant originally lodged
a complaint which was declined, which led to filing of Crl.M.P.No.4233 of
2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, for registration of
FIR. Thereafter, on 16.10.2024, the present FIR came to be registered.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, earlier, an
application has been filed by the de facto complainant under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.2879 of 2022, to register the complaint and the said
petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. As against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
said order, a revision in Crl.R.C.No.1223 of 2022 was filed before this
Court. This Court, by order dated 29.08.2022, set aside the order of the
learned Judicial Magistrate and issued a direction to forward the complaint
of the de facto complainant dated 09.06.2022 to the 1st respondent Police
and also directed the 1st respondent Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry
and follow the procedure as laid down in Lalithakumari's case and
depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry, the 1st respondent
was directed to register a case and investigate into the same and file a final
report in accordance with law or to give such intimation as mandated under
law to the complainant. In the meanwhile, the complaint given by the 2 nd
respondent/de facto complainant, dated 09.06.2022, was closed by the
Police by closure report dated 15.12.2022. The said closure report was also
challenged before this Court in W.P.No.5809 of 2023. The complainant
also filed a petition before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.17973 of 2022 to recall
the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.1223 of 2022 and to direct registration of
case and investigation of the case by some other independent agency. Both
the writ petition in W.P.No.5809 of 2023 and the petition to recall filed in
Crl.M.P.No.17973 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1223 of 2022 were disposed of by
this Court by a common order dated 20.07.2023. This Court, in its common
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
order, held that, as this Court earlier directed to conduct preliminary
enquiry as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalithakumari's
case, there are no merits in the recall petition, and thereby, dismissed the
recall petition. As far as challenge to the closure report is concerned, this
Court, considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
G.Prabhakaran v. Superintendent of Police and another reported in (2018)
4 MLJ (Crl.) 513, held that the only course open to the complainant is to
file an appropriate petition/complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate
after due compliance of law and this Court cannot go into the merits of the
closure report and set aside the same in exercise of the powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing the writ petition, liberty
was granted to the de facto complainant to file a private complaint before
the Magistrate and this Court also directed the Assistant Commissioner, HR
& CE Department/3rd respondent therein to conduct enquiry and take
appropriate action against the private respondents and forward the
complaint to the Law Enforcement Agencies. Hence, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier complaint filed by the
de facto complainant has already been closed and challenge to the closure
report also did not fructify any results. Further, while dismissing the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
petition, this Court has granted liberty to the de facto complainant only to
file a private complaint. Therefore, once again, an application filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.4233 of 2024 ought not to have been
entertained by the learned Magistrate, on the basis of which, the present
FIR came to be registered. Hence, it is the further contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that FIR ought not to have been filed based on the
second complaint forwarded by the learned Magistrate, since earlier
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had already been dismissed and
the said order of dismissal has also reached finality.
5.Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/
de facto complainant would submit that, while disposing of the recall
petition as well as writ petition, this Court has clearly held that the de facto
complainant is entitled to file a private complaint. Only on that basis, the
complaint was presented. However, the trial Court, instead of treating it as
a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has once again directed
investigation. Only on that basis, the present FIR has been filed since
cognizable offence is made out. Hence, he opposed the quashment of the
FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
6.I have perused the entire materials available on record.
7.The sum and substance of the allegations in the FIR is with regard
to the removal of valuable trees from the Temple premises. The allegations
have been made against the persons who are unconnected to the Temple
administration and not involved in the helm of affairs of the Temple.
However, the removal of trees is not in dispute. Though it is not stated that
they are valuable trees, the fact remains that trees have been removed from
the Temple, which fact has been recorded in the earlier orders referred
above. Now, the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the previous complaint given by the petitioner was closed by the
authorities, and when the closure report was challenged before this Court in
a writ petition, this Court had dismissed the writ petition, however, liberty
was granted only to file a private complaint. However, it is his contention
that, now, once again, an application has been filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., based on which, the present FIR has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
8.On a careful perusal of the application filed by the complainant/2 nd
respondent in Crl.M.P.No.4233 of 2024, it is clear that it is one seeking
seeking direction. Though this Court had earlier given liberty only to file a
private complaint, a detailed complaint has been filed by the de facto
complainant seeking a direction once again under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
This complaint has been filed on 06.05.2024. The learned Magistrate has
once again forwarded the said complaint for registration of FIR on
23.08.2024. Based on that, now the present FIR has been registered.
9.This Court is of the view that, merely because the complaint was
not taken cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no
private complaint is filed. In fact, the contents of the entire complaint filed
by the de facto complainant discloses cognizance offences. Therefore, the
learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. However, it is the discretion of the learned Magistrate
either to take cognizance by following the procedure under Section 200
Cr.P.C. or to forward the same to the concerned jurisdictional Police. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
learned Magistrate has adopted the latter course by forwarding the
complaint to the jurisdictional Police, which was considered and the present
FIR came to be filed. Therefore, merely because the complaint dated
06.05.2024 has not been filed by quoting the relevant provision, i.e.,
Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has not
been followed by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the
same cannot be a ground to hold that the FIR registered on the basis of such
complaint has to be quashed at the threshold. Such a technical ground
cannot be a ground to erase the offences allegedly perpetuated. In the
present case, though the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to register the earlier complaint dated
09.06.2022, this Court, by an order dated 29.08.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1223 of
2022, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, and once again, the
complaint was directed to be forwarded to the Police. However, no action
has been taken. Later, by a common order passed by this Court in
Crl.M.P.No.17973 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1223 of 2022 and W.P.No.5809 of
2023, though this Court declined to interfere with the closure report, gave
liberty to the complainant to file a private complaint. In the same common
order, this Court also dismissed the petition to recall the earlier order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.17973 of 2022. Thereafter, a detailed complaint has been filed,
of course, quoting wrong provision of law. The learned Magistrate,
without considering the earlier orders of this Court, forwarded the said
complaint to the jurisdictional Police instead of following the procedure
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is
of the view that such a procedural violation will not go to the root of the
matter. Ultimately, what is to be seen is, whether a cognizable offence is
made out or not. At this stage, merely on technicalities, the FIR registered
pursuant to such order of the learned Magistrate, cannot be quashed.
10.One more submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, if the complaint is to be treated as a private complaint by
the learned Magistrate, as per Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, the accused should have an opportunity to defend his case even
before cognizance is taken. This Court is of the view that such a
contention has no force at all. The entire proceedings has been initiated
under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The private complaint, as directed
by this Court, has been filed on 06.05.2024, much prior to the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, coming into force. Even as per Section 531 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
BNSS, any proceedings which is pending under the old Code shall be
continued in accordance with the provisions of the old Code, viz., Code of
Criminal Procedure. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be countenanced.
11.Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and since
cognizable offences are made out, this Court is not inclined to quash the
FIR at this stage merely on technicalities. Accordingly, this Criminal
Original Petition is dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of the main
petition, connected miscellaneous petitions, including vacate stay petition,
are closed.
07.10.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 01:37:22 pm )
