[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Muthu Adaikkappan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl. OP(MD).No.4672 of 2026
and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.4973 and 5962 of 2026
Muthu Adaikkappan
The President of the Seethalakshmi Achi College for
Women and Endowment Trust
Member of School and College Committee
Dhanalakshmi Vilas No.22, OA Street, Pallathur
Sivagangai District
Kumbakonam ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Inspector of Police
Pallathur Police Station
Sivagangai District
Crime No.4 of 2026
2.O.A.A.A.AP.Annamalai Chettiar
The Correspondent and Secretary of
Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women and Endowment Trust
No.22, OA Street, Pallathur
Sivagangai District ....Respondents
Prayer:This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.4 of 2026 dated 04.01.2026 on the
file of the respondent police Sivagangai District, offences under Section
296(b) and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and quash the
same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
For Petitioner : M/s.B.Bhuvaneshvari
For Respondents :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
:M/s.A.N.Meenakshi for R2
ORDER
The accused in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police
has filed the present petition seeking to quash the F.I.R wherein the petitioner
is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 296(b) and 115 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the complainant had alleged that
there is a dispute between himself and his brother (accused) with regard to
the administration of the college. On 29.12.2025, when complainant had
entered into the college, his brother (accused) had abused him and threatened
him that he should not enter into the college. It is further alleged in the F.I.R
that by using hands, the accused person is said to have beaten the defacto
complainant in his stomach and attacked the Office Assistant also. Since the
injuries were very minor in nature, they have not gone to the hospital. It is
further alleged in the complaint that the accused is stopping him from
implementing the orders of the High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
allegations even if they are assumed to be true, it relates to the administration
of the college and on the allegation of causing some minor injuries, the
present F.I.R has been registered.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that no
such incident has taken place on the said date, but only to implicate the
petitioner in a criminal case, such a complaint has been lodged. She had
further submitted that the ingredients of Section 115 of BNS have not been
made out. Section 33 of BNS would be attracted wherein in case, if harm is
so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such
harm, no offence is made out. She further submitted that the obscene words
have not been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore, the ingredients
of Section 296(b) of BNS have not been made out.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant
had raised a strong objection for considering the petition to quash the F.I.R.
She had further submitted that it does not relate to the administration of the
college. The accused person has attacked the defacto complainant who was
administering the college pursuant to the orders of the High Court. The
learned counsel had further submitted that the case of complainant would not
fall under Section 33 of BNS. The allegations made by the petitioner have to
be investigated and therefore, no grounds have been made out to stall the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
investigation.
6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
7.A perusal of the complaint clearly reveals that there is a dispute
between the brothers (complainant and the accused) with regard to the
administration of an aided college and they are litigating before various
forums. On 29.12.2025, it is alleged that when the defacto complainant
entered the college, the accused is said to have picked up a quarrel and used
his hands and attacked the defacto complainant at his stomach. Even as per
the complainant, since injuries were very minor, they have not got admitted to
the hospital. That apart, though Section 296(b) of BNS has been invoked, the
specific obscene words that are said to have been uttered by the accused have
not been recorded in the complaint.
8.In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the litigation arising out of dispute touching upon the administration of
the college, has resulted in filing of the present complaint. Even assuming
that the alleged incident had happened on 29.12.2025, that would squarely
fall within Section 33 of BNS. Therefore, no offence could have been made
out as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
9.In view of the above said facts, no useful purpose would be served in
directing the police officials to continue with the investigation of the F.I.R.
Therefore, the F.I.R in Crime No.4 of 2026 stands quashed and this Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
18.03.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Pallathur Police Station
Sivagangai District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.4973 and 5962 of 2026
18.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 11:09:34 am )
