Sathya vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police

CRL OP No. 31297 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. 31297 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012545302026}
and
CRL MP No. 20767 of 2026
Sathya
W/o Ravichandran,
D.No.270, 7th Cross Street,
OYO Apartments, Kamakotti Nagar,
Pallikaranai, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State rep. By,
The Inspector of Police
S10, Pallaikaranai Police Station,
Tambaram City Police.
Crime No.663 of 2022.
2. Monisha Sinha
D/o Kore Sinha,
No.A3-2H, Phase-1, Tranquil Plaza,
Kovilambakkam, Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying
to call for the records pertaining to the PRC.No.33 of 2026 on the file of the
learned Additional Mahila Judge(JM Level),Alandur,Chennai and quash the
same against the Petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Soundararajan
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in PRC No.33 of
2026 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge (JM Level),
Alandur,Chennai , thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 406, 420, 354D, 376, and 506(2) IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, on the pretext of
marriage had a sexual relationship with the de-facto complainant and thereafter
cheated her. It is further alleged that first accused, along with other accused,
namely, A2 to A4 committed a gang rape and physically abused the de-facto
complainant. When the de-facto complainant brought the incident to the
knowledge of the petitioner/fifth accused, who is the mother of the first accused,
the petitioner allegedly threatened her that she would have released the private
videos into the social media and thereby ruining her life. Based on the
complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the first respondent registered an
FIR in Crime No.663 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 354D, 376 and 506(2) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the
first respondent filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance by
the trial Court.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even as
per the case of the prosecution, there is no specific allegation against the
petitioner, who is arrayed as A5, so as to constitute an offence under Section
506(i) IPC. There is absolutely no averments or materials on record to attract
the offence under Section 506(i) IPC against A5.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
5. On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the
witnesses, it is revealed that there are specific allegations against the petitioner,
which are sufficient to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. The
veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the
appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioner involve disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
6. Further, on a perusal of the records and upon considering the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds
that serious allegations have been made against all the accused persons. It is
alleged that they committed heinous offences against the two victims on the
pretext of marriage. Therefore, merely because the petitioner is the mother of
the first accused, she cannot be absolved of the allegations against her,
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
particularly when she is alleged to have had knowledge of the offences
committed by the other accused persons.
7.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.
8.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,
this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
9.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.
10.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 petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.
11.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in PRC.No.33 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
Judge(JM Level),Alandur,Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court.
12.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Mahila Judge(JM
Level),Alandur,Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police
S10, Pallaikaranai Police Station,
Tambaram City Police.
Crime No.663 of 2022.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )

CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 31297 of 2026
and
CRL MP No. 20767 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:34 pm )