Nagalakshmi vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012539032026}
1. Nagalakshmi
W/o Rajendran,
Residing at,,
Middle Street,
Puthanthur Village,
Kallakurichi Taluk and District.
2. Ajith
S/o Rajendran,
Residing at,,
Middle Street,
Puthanthur Village,
Kallakurichi Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
Kallakurichi Police Station,
Kallakurichi.
Crime NO.501 of 2026
2. Muniyammal
W/o Parisuraman,
Residing at,
No.2/8,
Middle Street,
Puthanthur Village,Kallakurichi Taluk and
District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This petition is filed under section 528 of BNS to call for
the records pertaining to Crime No.501 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 on the file of
the 1st Respondent Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, and quash the same
insofar as the petitioners accused A1 and A2 are concerned, and pass such
further or other orders as this Honourable Court.
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.Arunkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.501 of 2026
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections
296(b),11592) and 351(2) of BNS as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the second
respondent are neighbours and there was previous enmity between them. Due to
which there was a quarrel among them, which escalated into violence and
assault. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners
before the first respondent. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent,
the first respondent registered a Fir in Crime No.501 of 2026 under section
296(b),11592) and 351(2) of BNS. To quash the same, the petitioners have filed
the present petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.501 of 2026.for the offences under Sections2 96(b),11592)
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
and 351(2) of BNS , as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be
investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that
the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this
Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has
to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in the Code.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in it’s judgment reported in
2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The
State of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required
to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the
offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the
accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of
the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate
must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to
conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken
for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do
not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it
can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a
meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading
of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there
would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process,
it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of
the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal
complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made
therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the
judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. , as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
under   Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
Section 482
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report in Crime No. 501 of 2026 pending on the file of the
respondent police. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stand dismissed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SMN
To.
1. The Inspector of Police
Kallakurichi Police Station,
Kallakurichi.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
SMN
CRL OP No. 31296 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )