Mubarislal vs The State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Poli

CRL OP No. 31561 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. 31561 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012583452026}
and
CRL MP Nos. 20891 and 20892 of 2026
1. Mubarislal
S/o Beerankutty,
M.B.H. House,
Malangadan,
Thachunni,
Karakunnu,
Malappuram District,
Kerala.
2. Suneera
W/o Yunus Saleem Konari,
Konari House,
Thailakkadavu Post,
Velimukku,
Malappuram District,
Kerala.
3. Fairoosa
W/o Ibrahim,
Ibrahim Manzil House,
Poollottur,
Malappuram District, Kerala.
4. Sini
W/o Kethan,
5/1489, Melambalam,
Srimadurai,
Gudalur,
The Nilgiris District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
Gudalur Sub Division,
Gudalur,
The Nilgiris District.
2. Sub-Inspector of Police
Gudalur Police Station,
Gudalur, Nilgiris.
3. A.B. Bama
W/o Prakash,
Case Worker,
Child Help Line,
District Child Protection Office,
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying
to call for the records in Spl SC No. 1 of 2025 pending on the file Learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): M.Velmurugan
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl SC No. 1 of
2025 pending on the file Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam,
Nilgiris, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 3(1)(h) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Section 370(5) IPC, and Sections 370(4) read with 109 IPC.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 3rd respondent/de-facto
complainant, a Case Worker of the Child Help Line attached to the District
Child Protection Office, Udhagamandalam, lodged a complaint on 15.06.2024
after enquiring into the matter and speaking to certain minor girls. It is alleged
th
that the 5 accused, a resident of Melambalam, Gudalor, took one girl, then
st
aged 17 (LW19), from Guadlur to the house of the 1 accused (Shamseer
Konari) in Kerala, where she is said to have worked as a domestic worker for
about three to four months on a low salary. The prosecution further alleges that
nd st
on 29.05.2024, the 2 accused (Mubarislal) said to be a relative of the 1
st
accused, visited the 1 accused house, saw L.W.19 working there and asked
whether girls were available to work in his own house, and that LW19 replied
that girls like her were in her village.
2.1.It is further alleged that on 15.06.2024, at about 4.00 p.m., Accused 2
to 4 (Mubarislal, Suneera and Fairoosa) came from Keala to Koodalur in Innova
car bearing Registration No.KL 11 BJ 5551 and, “with sweet words” and by
compulsion, put three minor girls (LW20 to LW22) into the car and attempted
to take them to Kerala. Two of the girls were said to be playing at Melambalam
and one was said to be standing outside her house at Chemundi. Local persons
(LW2 and LW5 to LW7) are said to have taken the girls and the accused to the
Gudalur Police Station on the same day. After completion of the investigation,
nd
the 2 respondent police filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
by the trial Court.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are home-makers and having nothing to do with the offences alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.182 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 3(1)(h) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Section 370(5) IPC, and Sections 370(4) read with 109 IPC as against the
petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in Special S.C No.1 of 2025
on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris. Further,
no offence is made out under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
4.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed 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 petitioners,
which are sufficient to attract the offences under Sections Sections 3(1)(h) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Section 370(5) IPC, and Sections 370(4) read with 109 IPC. The veracity
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
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.
6.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.
7.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
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8.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.
9.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.
10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in Spl SC No. 1 of 2025 pending on the file Learned Principal
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris. The petitioners are at liberty to
raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the
petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after
filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be present before
the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Gudalur Sub Division,
Gudalur,
The Nilgiris District.
3. Sub-Inspector of Police
Gudalur Police Station,
Gudalur, Nilgiris.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )

CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 31561 of 2026
and
CRL MP Nos. 20891 and 20892 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )