[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mansoor Ahamed vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.6220 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2026
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.6220 of 2026
Mansoor Ahamed .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector of Police,
F5 Choolaimedu Police Station,
Chennai – 600 094.
(Crime No.638 of 2025)
2. A.Muthukumari .. Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to
call for records relating to FIR in Crime No.638 of 2025 pending on the
file of the Inspector of Police, F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6220 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, in Crime No.638 of 2025 registered for
offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of B.N.S.S and Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, has filed this
quash application.
2. The contention of the petitioner/accused is that the petitioner
is having an egg mart adjacent to the Jasmine Apartment and the second
respondent/de facto complainant and her husband are doing watch and
ward in the apartment. They were always intruding into the business of the
petitioner/accused and also obstructing of arranging the trace in front of
the shop and also complaining that pungent smell is emanating from the
shop. The petitioner/accused submitted that it is a part of the business and
that they are carrying out the business even before the apartment has come
there and that now, raising such objections is not sustainable.
3. Keeping this in mind, a wordy quarrel with regard to parking
of a load van had been projected as if the petitioner/accused had abused
and assaulted the victim. In fact, the victim had fell on a gate while she
was chased away which was projected as if the petitioner/accused had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
assaulted her.
4. Now, compromise has been entered into between the
petitioner/accused and the second respondent/de facto complainant and all
agreed that the issue could be resolved and the matter has been
compromised. The second respondent/de facto complainant has also given
a letter to the respondent Police to withdraw the complaint and not to
further proceed with the case. The petitioner/accused, in support of her
contention, has produced the joint compromise memo in page No.29 of the
affidavit.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first
respondent submits that in this case, the de facto complainant is a lady.
She, along with her husband, Arokiasamy, are doing watch and ward in the
Jasmine Apartment. They have two sons Veda Antony and Gilbert. On
12.09.2025, at about 10.30 A.M, a load van was parked near the gate at the
entrance of the apartment, for which, the second respondent/de facto
complainant questioned. At that time, the petitioner/accused came there,
abused her and assaulted her. Later, she was taken for treatment to the
Best Hospital. A complaint was received and an F.I.R was registered in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
this case. Now, the investigation has been completed and the Final Report
in e-filing No.LTN20230000809C202500253 has been filed before the
learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
6. The de facto complainant and the petitioner have appeared
before this Court. On interaction, the second respondent/de facto
complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint and submits that she is not
interested in further continuing with the case and that the case had
originated due to exchange of words in the heat of passion. Considering
the submissions made that the petitioner/accused is having an egg mart
next to the second respondent/de facto complainant’s flat and further, after
the incident, the petitioner/accused continues to have his business and the
second respondent/de facto complainant continues to be the watchman in
the apartment and that there are no further incidents thereafter and now, at
the intervention of the common friends and elders, the issue has been
resolved, this Court is included to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.638 of
2025 on the file of the first respondent.
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
The F.I.R in Crime No.638 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
Police, stands quashed and consequently, the Final Report, filed in e-filing
No.LTN20230000809C202500253 on the file of the learned XVII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, also stands quashed.
11.03.2026
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
To
1. The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
3. The Inspector of Police,
F5 Choolaimedu Police Station,
Chennai – 600 094.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
grs
11.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:48 pm )
