S.Ponnurangam vs The State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011975442026}
and
CRL MP No. 20872 of 2026,CRL MP No. 20873 of 2026
1. S.Ponnurangam
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector
Of Police
Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu.
2.Panjalai
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To call for the records in CC.No.399 of 2025 pending on the files of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Cheyyur, Chengalpattu and quash the same
or pass such further orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.R.Mahesh Balaje
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.399 of
1 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at
Cheyyur, Chengalpattu, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.373 of 2023, as
against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other
accused persons had wordy quarrel with the daughter of the defacto
complainant and abused her with filthy languages and assaulted her, arising out
of a dispute while cutting trees belonging to the petitioner’s family. The defacto
complainant and the accused persons belong to the same village and in fact,
they are neighbours.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent 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.373 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and
506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.399 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate at Cheyyur, Chengalpattu. Hence he prayed to quash
2 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that
the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in
this case. The victim was injured and treated for seven days in hospital.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. 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 offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and
506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002. 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.
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
3 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
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.
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
4 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
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 C.C.No.399 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate at Cheyyur, Chengalpattu. The petitioner is at liberty to
raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the
petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with. The trial Court is directed to
complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this Order.
5 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
30-10-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ab
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Cheyyur, Chengalpattu.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
3.The Sub-Inspector Of Police
Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu.
2.Panjalai
W/o Sadayan, No.1, Santhayamman
Kovil Street, Vadakkuvayaloor Village,
Nelvoy Post, Cheyyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu.
6 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31461 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
ab
CRL OP No. 31461 of
2026
and CRL MP No. 20872
of 2026,CRL MP No.
20873 of 2026
30-10-2026
7 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )