[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Naveenkumar vs The State Rep By Its on 7 April, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
CRL OP No. 8631 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 8631 of 2026
Naveenkumar
S/o.Nagarajan
No1/25 O.M.R Main Road, Navalur thiruporur
Taluk
Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By Its
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Metro II Chennai District.
2. Santhakumari
W/o.Natarajan
No.1/237 Bajanai Kovil Street
Navalur Chennai - 600 130
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS to call for the
records relating in P.R.C.No.22 of 2026 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.I, Chengalpattu and quash the same against this Petitioner
by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Rajarathinam
Senior Counsel
for Mr. M.Guruprasad
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor For R1
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 8631 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner / A5 in Cr.No.05 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 147, 448, 380, 506(i) IPC and Section 3(2) of
TNPPDL Act and later altered to Sections 147, 448, 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)
of TNPPDL Act in PRC No.22 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate I, Chengalpattu, has filed this quash petition.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (A5) submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and in the FIR, the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had threatened the de facto
complainant and other accused by engaging henchmen and he had demolished
the compound wall and properties of the de facto complainant. Admittedly,
there was a civil dispute between the de facto complainant and all the accused in
this case except the petitioner. The petitioner was defending the co-accused in
the other proceedings which is now being projected as though at the instigation
of the petitioner, the demolition and damage has been caused by the other
accused. He further submitted that the de facto complainant had also sent a
complaint to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and enquiry was
conducted. In the enquiry, it is recorded that a case has been registered against
the petitioner and 11 others in Cr.No.641 of 2018 and on the day of occurrence
i.e. on 10.12.2018, the petitioner was attending a Court in Chennai and he was
not present at the scene of occurrence.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.4919 of 2019 before this court
seeking to foresee the Electronic evidence and appropriate direction to be given
to the Registrar General, Madras High Court, to prove the fact that the petitioner
appeared in S.C.No.465/2018 and he was very much present in the Court on the
date of occurrence. This Court had directed the Inspector of Police, Thalampoo
Police to collect the CCTV Recordings from the Registrar General, Madras
High Court and to consider the contention of the petitioner. Thereafter, the
investigation has been transferred to CBCID and now charge sheet has been
filed.
2.2 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that even in the charge
sheet, the only overt act against the petitioner is that the petitioner was found to
be in the place of occurrence and giving some instruction to the co-accused who
is also residing in the same street. L.W.3 submits that when he returned form
the shop at 7.00 a.m., he saw the petitioner giving directions and thereafter, the
demolition and damage to the said wall committed. Admittedly, the petitioner
was present near his house and it is only an assumption of L.W.3 that the
occurrence had taken place on the instruction of the petitioner.
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Finding reason and force in the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is admitted.
4. Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
takes notice for the first respondent and seeks time to file his counter.
5. Issue notice to the second respondent returnable by 05.06.2026. Private
notice is permitted.
6. Post on 05.06.2026.
07-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
BKN
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Metro II Chennai District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate – I, Chengalpattu.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
BKN
07-04-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
