[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Hari @ Harikaran vs The State Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
CRL OP No. 3783 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRL OP No. 3783 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2619 and 2620 of 2026
Hari @ Harikaran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police
Nettapakkam Police Station,
Puducherry District.
Crime No. 92/2013.
2. J.M.Patrick
SI of Police,
Nettapakkam PS,
Puducherry.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS calling for the records in connection with C.C.No. 20 of 2017 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy,
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
Assisted by Mr.A.Alexander,
Government Advocate for R1
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the
order dated passed in C.C.No.20 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Puducherry.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
2. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in
Cr.No.92 of 2013 was registered by the first respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 153(A), 336, 427, 353 and 506(ii)
r/w.149 of IPC, 1860, against the petitioner and 52 others. Upon completion
of the investigation, the respondent file a final report, and the case was taken
cognizance of and is presently pending trial in C.C.No.20 of 2017. The charge
sheet reads as follows:
That on 24.09.2013 in between 09.30 hrs & 11.00
hrs, at the junction of Pandasozhanallur, Nettapakkam,
Puducherry 2 kmtrs towards South East from PS, the
accused persons notes in this charge sheet at Col.No.11,
were belonging to 1.PMK Originaintha Vanniyar
Kudiruppu Nala Sangam and 2. VCK Party in
prosecution of common object formed themselves into
an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons,
promoting enmity between two groups of political
parties doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony, damaged the digital banner of VCK / PMK
and pelted stones against each other and deterred the
police officer and men to discharge their official duty by
using violence. They also threatened them with dire
consequences due to political enmity. And thereby all
the accused persons A1 to A53 rendered themselves
liable to be punished u/s.147, 148, 153(A), 336, 427,
353 and 506(ii) r/w.149 of IPC.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
3. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
are as follows:-
3.1. The petitioner is a resident of Kalmandabam Village, Puducherry
and has been arrayed as A22 in the present case without there being any
specific allegation against him. The case was registered on 24.09.2013, the
final report was filed on 27.11.2014 and the same was taken on file in
C.C.No.20 of 2017. Though cognizance has been taken, there has been no
progress in the trial for the past eight years, and nearly thirteen years have
elapsed from the date of registration of the case.
3.2. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
153 A, 336, 427, 353 and 506(ii) r/w.149 of IPC, 1860. Insofar as the offence
under Section 153 A of IPC, 1860, prior sanction of the competent authority
is mandatory under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in
the absence of such sanction, the prosecution is vitiated.
3.3. However, in the present case, no sanction has been obtained by
the respondent as mandated under law, and the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence in the absence of such sanction, which is
impermissible. The petitioner’s name does not find place in the First
Information Report. In the absence of any test identification parade or any
legally acceptable material, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
case based on fake allegations.
3.4. This Court, in a similar matter in Suo Motu WP.(Crl).No.618 of
2025, had exercised its powers to quash criminal proceedings on the ground
of inordinate delay, in order to safeguard the right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the proceedings
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, in
C.C.No.20 of 2017 as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first
respondent police submits that the petitioner, along with 52 others, belongs
to rival political parties and different communities, and that they had
promoted hatred and enmity between groups. He fairly submits that no
sanction has been obtained under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. However, he
submits that instead of quashing the proceedings, the matter may be remitted
to the trial Court for the purpose of obtaining appropriate sanction.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. At the outset, for better appreciation of the issue, Section 196 of
Cr.P.C. is extracted below at the cost of prolixity:
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
“196. Prosecution for offences against the State
and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of—
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter
VI or under section 153A, section 295A or
subsection (1) of section 505 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section
108A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government or of the State Government
(1A) No Court shall take cognizance of —
(a) any offence punishable under section
153B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government or of the State Government
or of the District Magistrate
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence
of any criminal conspiracy punishable under
section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, imprisonment
for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or upwards, unless the State Government or
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
the District Magistrate has consented in writing to
the initiation of the proceeding:
Provided that where the criminal
conspiracy is one to which the provisions of
section 195 apply, no such consent shall be
necessary
(3) The Central Government or the State
Government may, before according sanction under
subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) and the District
Magistrate may, before according sanction under
sub-section (1A) and the State Government or the
District Magistrate may, before giving consent
under sub-section (2), order a preliminary
investigation by a police officer not being below the
rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer
shall have the powers referred to in subsection (3)
of section 155”
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the case has been taken on
file for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 153 A, 336, 427, 353 and
506(ii) r/w.149 of IPC, 1860, this Court finds that for prosecuting the offence
under Section 153 A of IPC, 1860, the respondent ought to have obtained
prior sanction under Section 196 of Cr.P.C.
8. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no sanction has been obtained. In
the absence of mandatory sanction, taking cognizance of the offence is per se
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
unsustainable. Hence, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served
by keeping the proceedings pending. Further, the matter has been pending
from the year 2013 without any progress in trial.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, in exercise of powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.20 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Puducherry and accordingly, the same is quashed in entirety.
10. This criminal original petition is allowed in the above terms.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
20-02-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rap
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police
Nettapakkam Police Station,
Puducherry District.
Crime No. 92/2013.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
rap
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
20-02-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
