B.N.Ravi vs State of Tamilnadu, Represented

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
Reserved on : 29.10.2026
Pronounced on : 13.11.2026
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP Nos. 7401 and 10202 of 2026
and
Crl.MP.Nos.5341, 5342 7279 and 7281 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010612462026}
Crl.OP.No.7401 of 2026
B.N.Ravi
S/o.Late Narasimhan,
No.343/3, Main Road,
Baluchetty Chatram Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu, Represented
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Prohibition Enforcement Unit,
(Addl in Charge Social Justice and Human
Rights), Kancheepuram District.
2. State, represented by The Inspector of Police
Baluchetty Chatram Police Station
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
(SC.No.207 of 2024 in Crime No.546 of 2022)
Section 294(B) 506(1),506(2)
323,447,109 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989)
3. Sugana,W/o.Devendiran,
No.4th Street, Annanagar, TiruputkuzhiVillage,
Baluchetty PO,Kancheepuram.
__________
Page1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
..Respondent(s)
CRL OP No. 10202 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010904912026}
1. R. Muralidaran
S/o.Ravi,
No.343/3, Main Road,
Baluchetty Chatram Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
2. B.N.Basker
S/o.Late Narsimhan,
No.343/3, Main Road,
Baluchetty Chatram Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
3. K.Madesh
S/o.Kumaraguru,
No.343/3, Main Road,
Baluchetty Chatram Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu, Represented Deputy
Superintendent of Police,
District Prohibition Enforcement Unit.
(Addl in Charge Social Judtice and Human
Rights,
Kancheepuram District.
2. State, represented by The Inspector of Police,
Baluchetty Chatram Police Station,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No.546 of 2022)
section 294(B),506(1),323,447,109 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) of SC/ST
(prevention of Atrocities Act 1989).
3. Sugana
W/o.Devendiran,
No.4th Street, Annanagar, Tiruputkuzhi
Village, Baluchetty PO, Kancheepuram.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
Common Prayer in Crl.OP.Nos.7401 and 10202 of 2026: Criminal Original
Petitions filed under Section 528 of BNS, to call for the records in SC.No 207
of 2024 on the file of the Honble Principal District and Sessions Court,
Kancheepuram to quash the same, and render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Pugalanthi
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath, Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 and R2
Mr.S.Indrajith for R3
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in SC.No 207 of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal District
and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram.
2. The petitioners in Crl.OP.No.7401 and 10202 of 2026 are arrayed as
A1 and A2, A3 and A4 respectively. On the complaint lodged by the third
respondent, the second respondent registered the FIR in Cr.No.546 of 2022 for
the offences punishable under Sections 294B, 506(i), 506(2), 323, 447, 109 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989)
alleging that the third respondent/defacto complainant was elected as the
President of the Tiruputkuzhi Village Panchayat for a second consecutive term.
She belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) community and is affiliated with a
political party opposite to that of the accused, who belong to other communities.
__________
Page3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
The wife of the second accused and the daughter-in-law of the first accused had
contested against the de facto complainant for the post of Panchayat President
and lost.
3. It is alleged that unable to accept her electoral victory, the accused
frequently humiliated the de facto complainant in public places by hurling
casteist slurs and threatening her with dire consequences. They arrogantly
claimed that despite her election as the Panchayat President, they held power
equivalent to a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and that she could
not act against their wishes.
4. It is further alleged that on 29.11.2021, at around 02:00 p.m. near the
Draupathi Amman Temple on Arumuga Nadar Street, the de facto complainant
and her husband brought a JCB machine to clear stagnant rainwater. At that
juncture, the accused gathered and abused them using their caste name in public
view. When the de facto complainant's husband questioned their behavior, he
was physically assaulted by the accused. Following this incident, they
immediately lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police,
Kanchipuram District. During the subsequent inquiry conducted by the second
respondent, the accused tendered an apology to the de facto complainant and
__________
Page4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
gave an assurance that they would not indulge in any further illegal activities
against her.
5. However, seeking vengeance for the complaint lodged against them,
the accused began demanding that the de facto complainant employ only those
individuals recommended by them for panchayat work. Furthermore, the
accused refused to pay their water and property taxes. On 15.04.2022, the
accused trespassed into the Panchayat Office in an inebriated state, picked a
quarrel over the tax demands, and abused the complainant and others using
filthy language and casteist slurs.
6. It is further alleged that earlier, on 26.01.2022, the accused had also
attempted to prevent the de facto complainant from hoisting the National Flag
on the occasion of Republic Day. Defying their opposition and with the
assistance of the general public, the Panchayat President successfully hoisted
the National Flag. However, while she was distributing notebooks to the school
students attending the celebration, the accused again insulted her with filthy
language and abused her caste identity. Although all these incidents were duly
reported to the District Collector, no action was initiated against the accused.
Consequently, the de facto complainant approached the Commission for
__________
Page5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Following this, the second respondent
registered a First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 546 of 2022.
7. It is further alleged that on completion of the investigation, a final
report was filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court,
Kancheepuram. The court took cognizance of the matter in S.C. No. 207 of
2024, which is currently pending. The petitioners have now filed the present
petitions seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4
submits that the accused persons are respected individuals in their village and
that a false complaint has been foisted against them solely to evade the
execution of a Civil Court decree. He further submits that approximately one
year prior to the lodging of the complaint, the husband of the de facto
complainant borrowed a loan and subsequently defaulted on its repayment. This
default culminated in a suit for recovery of money in O.S. No. 148 of 2018 on
the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, which was
ultimately decreed in favour of the first accused. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the de facto complainant’s husband preferred an appeal suit in A.S.
No. 3 of 2024 on the file of the District Court, Kancheepuram. The appellate
court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed
by the trial court.
__________
Page6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
9. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the defacto
complainant completely suppressed the existence of the aforementioned money
decree in her complaint. Furthermore, no such alleged occurrence took place in
a public place or within public view, which is a mandatory prerequisite to attract
offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners/A1 to A4 relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in 2026 8SCC138 in the case of case of Gunjan Alias
Girija Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another. The relevant
portion of the Judgment is extracted here under:
“ Leave Granted. The challenge in this appeal is directed against
judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter “ the High Court”), dismissing
Criminal Revision Petition No.114 of 2023 and Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.3181 of 2023, filed by the appellant-accused herein.
2. In the criminal revision petition, what was called in question,
was the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-02..
The Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter “ the trial court”) dated
26.11.2022 on framing of charges as well as order dated 30.11.2022,
whereby the charges were framed. Against Appellant-1-Accused 1
Smt.Gunjan alias Girija Kumar, W/o.Shri Laxman Dass, Sections 3(1)
(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after SC/ST Act) ,
whereas against all the appellant-accused including Appellant-1,
charge was also framed under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the
Penal Code, 1860 (herein after IPC). The prayer of the appellants to
__________
Page7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
quash the said orders was rejected and the criminal revision petition
came to be dismissed by the High Court.
3. The complainant and the accused persons happen to be
family members. Appellants 2 and 3 and respondent2 complainant are
real brothers. Appellants 1 and 4 are legally wedded wives of
Appellants 2 and 3 respectively. The wives hail from castes other than
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Their husbands that is
Appellants 2 and 3 as well as respondent 2 complainant belong to
Scheduled Castes. By virtue of marriage, the wives, it was contended,
also stood to belong to caste and community of their husbands as well
as that of respondent 2 complainant. The facts on record and the
pleadings suggest that a dispute existed between the parties in
respect of the properties of their late father named Nand Kishore,
situated at Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar”.
Hence he prayed to quash the same.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and
second respondents as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent
reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to quash this petition.
12. A perusal of the records reveals that there are specific averments and
allegations made against each and every accused, which prima facie constitute
the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 506(ii), 323, 447, and
109 of IPC alongside Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, the
judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel do not come to the aid of
the petitioners in the case on hand.
__________
Page8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
13. Admittedly, the defacto complainant was elected as the President of
the Panchayat for two consecutive terms. Furthermore, the wife of the second
accused had also contested the said election and lost to the de facto
complainant. The presidency of the said Panchayat is reserved for women. The
third respondent/de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community,
and the accused, who belong to other communities, actively obstructed her from
discharging her official duties in the Panchayat.
14. In fact, the District Collector had conducted an enquiry regarding this
matter; however, no action was initiated against the accused at that stage.
Furthermore, the de facto complainant was unlawfully prevented from hoisting
the National Flag on Republic Day. It was only with the subsequent support and
assistance of the general public that she managed to hoist the flag on
26.01.2022. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be
considered at this stage to quash the entire criminal proceedings.
15. A perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the
witnesses reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners,
which are sufficient to prima facie attract the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 506(i), 506(ii), 323, 447, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) alongside Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
__________
Page9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The veracity of the
allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the appreciation of
evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of
fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019
(4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
(Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to
quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no
jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that
there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima
facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial
Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court
while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019 ) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, held that the High Courts cannot
record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be
tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore,
__________
Page10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment
of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to
whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the
ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court
can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have
been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the
complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged.
Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
19. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required
to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by
the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.
__________
Page11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Kancheepuram. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
21. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

13.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Vv
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District prohibition Enforcement Unit,
(Addl in Charge Social Justice and Human Rights,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police
Baluchetty Chatram Police Station Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
__________
Page12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 7401 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Vv
Pre-delivery Order
made in
Crl.O.P.Nos.7401 and 10202 of 2026
13.11.2026
__________
Page13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:35:48 pm )