[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Gnanasekar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).No.4671 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 02.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).No. 4671 of 2026
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.4972 & 4974 of 2026
Gnanasekar ....Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Inspector of Police
Karambakudi Police Station
Pudukkottai District
2.Eswari ....Respondents
Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to
S.C.No.273 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Pudukkottai for the offences under Sections 324, 506(2), 341, 307 & 34 of
I.P.C and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Aruljenifer
For M/s.KBS Law Office
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.4671 of 2026
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in
S.C.No.273 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Pudukkottai.
2.The petitioner is arrayed as 2nd accused and he is charged with the
offence under Sections 324, 506(2), 341, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
As per the case of the prosecution, all the four accused have waylaid the
defacto complainant. The specific overtact that is alleged as against the 2 nd
accused is that he had attacked the defacto complainant on his hands using an
iron rod and kicked the two-wheeler and attempted to commit murder of the
defacto complainant.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, his
name is not included in the F.I.R. In 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the defacto
complainant, he had mentioned only about Accused Nos.1 to 3 and not the
petitioner. He had further submitted that he was illegally detained by the
concerned police officials without any complaint whatsoever. Hence, he
approached the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu seeking
initiation of action as against the two Police Constables and the Inspector of
Police attached to the first respondent police station.
4.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
Commission had directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner for violation of the Human
Rights committed by the concerned police officials. In order to wreck
vengeance, the police officials have implicated him in the charge sheet.
Hence, he prayed to quash the charge sheet as against the petitioner.
5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the first respondent had submitted that based upon the confession of 1st
accused, the name of the petitioner has been incorporated in the charge sheet.
He had further submitted that the F.I.R was registered on 01.04.2019 and the
charge sheet was laid on 11.03.2021. The order of the State Human Rights
Commission, Tamil Nadu was passed only on 09.05.2025 and therefore, the
contention of the petitioner that to wreck vengeance, his name was included
in the charge sheet is not factually correct. He had further submitted that the
charge sheet reveals a prima facie case as against the petitioner wherein the
specific overtacts have been attributed as against him. In such circumstances,
the charge sheet cannot be quashed and the petitioner has to face trial.
6.By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that other than the confession statement of the co-accused, the
prosecution has not been produced any material whatsoever as against the
petitioner. He had further submitted that such a confession of a co-accused is
the weakest witness and the petitioner cannot be directed to stand for a trial
on the basis of the said evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
7.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
8.As contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent, the name of the petitioner has been
included in the charge sheet only based upon the confession of the
co-accused namely 1st accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
confession of 1st accused has let to any recovery from the petitioner.
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3803 ( Karan Talwar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) in paragraph No.
12 has held as follows:
“12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material available
against the appellant is the confession statement of the
co-accused viz., accused No.1, which undoubtedly cannot
translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial and
against the appellant. When that be the position, how can it be
said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to
stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position
that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where
there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence
at the trial stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the
person concerned to stand the trial.”
10.Our High Court in a judgment reported in 2025 (2) MWN (Cr.) 191
(C.K.Santhosh Vs. State. Rep by the Inspect of Police and another) in
Paragraph No.9 has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
“9.Thus, it is clear that solely on the confession statement of
the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be convicted. Further, the
confession statement of the Co-accused which undoubtedly cannot
translate into admissible evidence at the state of trial, when there is
no recovery on the strength of the confession statement. Even
according to the case of the prosecution, there is no recovery of the
contraband of any other incriminating material from the petitioner,
pursuant to the confession statement of the first accused.”
11.In view of the above said legal position, it is clear that solely based
upon the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be
convicted especially in the light of the fact, the confession had not let to any
recovery from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, it is clear that no
prima facie case has been made out to compel the petitioner to stand for trial.
It is a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into the
evidence at the stage of trial.
12.In view of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, confession
statement of the accused before police is inadmissible in evidence and except
that confession statement of 1st accused, nothing is on record to connect the
petitioner with the offence charged as against him. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot be ordered to go for an ordeal of trial.
13.In view of the above said deliberations, the proceedings in
S.C.No.273 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
Pudukkottai cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and the accordingly,
they are quashed as against the petitioner alone. The trial Court shall proceed
with the trial as against other accused persons.
14.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06-03-2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge
Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police
Karambakudi Police Station
Pudukkottai District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.4972 & 4974 of 2026
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
