[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).No.2073 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 09.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 11 .03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).No. 2073 of 2026
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.2336 & 2337 of 2026
Muthukumar ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by Inspector of Police
Nanguneri Police Station
Tirunelveli District
Crime No.274 of 2023
2.Murugan ....Respondents
Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 to call for the records in C.C.No.38 of
2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli District and quash the
charge sheet.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkatachalapathy
For Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
:Mr.T.A.Ebenezer for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.2073 of 2026
ORDER
The 1st accused in C.C.No.38 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Nanguneri has filed the present petition seeking to quash the
charge sheet wherein the petitioner has been charged with the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
2.As per the case of the prosecution, the defacto complainant had
married the daughter of the 2nd accused after having a love affair which was
not accepted by the family members.
3.On 29.08.2023 at about 9.40 a.m, when the defacto complainant
stopped his bike in front of his house, the 1st accused had picked up a quarrel
and abused him with obscene words. The 2nd accused had also abused the
defacto complainant that he had cheated her daughter and married her.
Thereafter, the 1st accused is said to have used an aruval and attacked the
defacto complainant on the back side of his head causing minor injuries. The
2nd accused is said to have attacked the defacto complainant with a stick
causing minor injuries in the index finger and ring finger. Thereafter, the 1st
accused is said to have handed over the aruval to the 2nd accused and later,
attacked him with stick causing minor injuries in the left hand hip region.
4.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no
specific overtacts have been alleged as against the 1st accused. He had further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
submitted that it is highly dramatic to state that after using weapons, the 1st
accused is said to have handed over the same to the 2nd accused and later,
picked up a stick to attack the defacto complainant. He had further submitted
that none of the witnesses have spoken about the overtact of the petitioner. In
case, if the injuries have been caused by an aruval, it would have been
serious injuries. He had further stated that the said aruval has not been
recovered. In such circumstances, it is clear that it is a false case foisted as
against the 1st accused.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
submitted that the specific overtacts have been alleged as against the
petitioner. He further stated that merely because of non-recovery of aruval,
the case of the prosecution cannot be suspected or that could be a ground for
quashing of the charge sheet. He further pointed out that the defence raised
by the petitioner could only be subjected to trial and the same cannot be a
ground for quashing of the charge sheet.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st
respondent had relied upon 161 Cr.P.C statement of the defacto complainant
wherein he had specifically alleged about the overtacts of the petitioner. He
also relied upon 161 Cr.P.C statement of the doctor who had spoken about the
injuries. He also pointed 161 Cr.P.C statement of one Arulraj who had stated
that aruval and the stick were thrown into forest area and therefore, the places
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
of throwing the same could not be identified. Therefore, according to him, it
is not a case where there is no overtact as against the petitioner which would
warrant quashing of the charge sheet.
7.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
8.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the material object said to have been used by the accused persons had not
been recovered and no specific overtacts have been alleged as against the
accused persons especially against the 1st accused. He had further contended
that it is highly dramatic to allege that after using aruval, the 1st accused had
handed over the same to the 2nd accused.
9.The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner for quashing the charge sheet are completely factual in nature and
they are subject matter of trial. The petitioner could not raise any legal
grounds for quashing the charge sheet. When prima facie case is made out as
against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present quash
petition. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the criminal
proceedings on its merits without being influenced by any one of the
observations made by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
10.With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
11-03-2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District
2. The Inspector of Police
Nanguneri Police Station
Tirunelveli District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.2336 & 2337 of 2026
11.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 06:02:40 pm )
