[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Ashok Kumar vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 13 March, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
CRL OP No. 6514 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 6514 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 4775 OF 2026
R.Ashok Kumar
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
D-2 Anna Salai Police Station,
Chennai.
2. Pappu
..Respondents
To call for the records in S.C.No.105 of 2026 on the file of the learned II
Additional Judge, Chennai and quash the same against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.N.Naresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Additional Public Prosecutor For R1
Order
The petitioner accused in S.C.No.105 of 2026 facing trial for the offence
under Sections 341, 294(b), 394 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC has filed this quash
application.
__________
Page1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 12:01:51 pm )
2. The contention of the petitioner is that a false case has been foisted
him, merely on account of certain antecendents dating back three years. The
petitioner had four prior cases, including, one under the NDPS Act and in all the
cases, the petitioner has been acquitted. As on date, the petitioner has no
previous case. In this case, it is alleged that the petitioner, along with one
Manikandan @ Mani, accosted the defacto complainant when he was
proceeding to a shop, and that A1 placed a knife on this neck while the
petitioner searched his packet and took away a sum of Rs.700/-. The alleged
occurrence is said tohave bene taken place on a public road, yet no independent
public witness has been examined, and the all witnesses cited are police
personnel. The case appears to have been registered only for statistical
purposes. Further, the petitioner has reformed himself. His children are studying
in School, and he is leading a peaceful life, being employed as a gym trainer in
Triplicane.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the
contention of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner is a history-sheeter
bearing No.29/2019. A1, in this case, is also a history-sheeter. It was submitted
that both of them have been threatening members of the public and business
people in the locality and collecting “protection money.” Further, it is alleged
that the petitioner, along with A1, committed the offence in broad daylight on a
public road. It was contended that none of the public witnesses have come
forward to give statements against the petitioner due to fear, and hence the
__________
Page2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 12:01:51 pm )
statements of the police personnel who were present at the scene of occurrence
have been recorded.
4. The petitioner is attributing malafides and improbabilities, which can
only be adjudicated, during trial. The Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that
though there were four previous cases and one NDPS case, all of them are not
pending. However, the points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and
must necessarily be decided during trial.
5. In view of the same, this petition is dismissed. The observation made in
this case is only to the limited purpose of deciding this Original petition.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13-03-2026
nl
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
D-2 Anna Salai Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 12:01:51 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
nl
and
CRL MP NO. 4775 OF 2026
13-03-2026
__________
Page4 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 12:01:51 pm )
