Devi Priya vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012395782026}
Devi Priya
W/o Srinivasan,
1/413, Pillaiyar Kovil,
2nd Cross Street,
Padianallur,
Red Hills,
Ponneri,
Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Represented by The Inspector of
Police
H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime no.997 of 2025.
2. Barani Sathya
Residing at No.14/7,
Rama Arangannal Main Street,
New Washermenpet,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This petition is filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for
the records pertaining to FIR No.997 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 on the file of the
1st Respondent/New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai and Quash the
same inso far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. V.Venkatesan
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
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.997 of 2025
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 296(b),
115(2),351(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act, 2023, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the petitioner is said
to have illegal relationship with the second respondent herein. It is alleged that
when the petitioner questioned the same to the second respondent, there was a
quarrel between them and the petitioner and her husband have beaten the
defacto complainant in a public place. Hence, the defacto complainant filed a
complaint against the petitioner. To quash the same the petitioner has filed the
present petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.997 of 2025 for the offences under Sections
296(b), 115(2),351(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
Women Act, 2023, , 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 passed in the judgment
reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 )
held 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 no 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
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
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
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under  Section 482  Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
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.997 of 2025 on the file of the first
respondent police.
10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SMN
To.
1.The Inspector of Police
H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
SMN
CRL OP No. 29218 of 2026
09-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:13 pm )