[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mariappan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 12 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP.(MD)No.23363 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.20235 of 2025
Mariappan ...Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Thoothukkudi District.
Crime No. 179 of 2024. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Karuppasamy ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act,
to call for the records relating to the Impugned final report, which is pending as
Unnumbered C.C.No... of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
No. II, Srivaikundam in F.R.No.177 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 and quash the
same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Prasanna Vinoth
for M/s.M.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.S.Selvakumar for R2
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.177
of 2024, on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the FIR
wherein he is alleged to have committed offences under Section 126(2), 296(b),
131 & 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the defacto complainant while he was
on his way in an Auto, he was intercepted by the accused person and attacked
with a wooden log. The defacto complainant was also abused by the accused
person. He had threatened that he would set fire to the Auto.
3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
petitioner and the second respondent are relatives and out of other disputes, the
present complaint has been lodged. In fact the petitioner was not at all involved
in the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 161
statement of the defacto complainant would clearly reveal that the accused
person as well as the defacto complainant were talking with each other and due
to sudden provocation, the defacto complainant is alleged to have abused the
petitioner as well as made an attempt to attack with wooden log and therefore,
according to him, Section 351 of IPC would not get attracted. He relied upon a
decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 and 20382 of 2020.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that mere
threat is not enough and unless the threat was made with an intention to cause
harm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which is not legally
bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to.
6. In the present case, even as per the 161 statement of the defacto
complainant, threat was not with the intent to do any alarm, therefore, according
to him, Section 126(2) of BNS would got attracted.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that
the ingredients of other Sections have not been made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that
another FIR has been lodged at the instance of the present petitioner and the
quash petition filed has been by the defacto complainant to the present case in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4430 of 2026.
9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
10. A perusal of the records clearly reveal that the alleged obscene words
are said to have been uttered due to grave and sudden provocation and the threat
that has been issued by the petitioner is not with the real intention to cause any
harm to the defacto complaint. In such circumstances, the ingredients of the
offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 131 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, have not
been made out.
11. In such circumstances, directing the accused person to undergo the
trial would caused him great hardship and therefore, this Court is inclined to
quash the F.I.R. in crime No.179 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent
police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
12. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition
stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
12.03.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
RJR
Note: Issue order copy on 16.03.2026
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, No. II,
Srivaikundam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Thoothukkudi District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
12.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
