Reena @ Amalorpavam vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012543462026}
AND CRL MP Nos.21455 & 21456 OF 2026
Reena @ Amalorpavam
W/o Velu,
Residing at No.160,
Pudu Nagar,
Govindasalai,
Puducherry.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By,
The Inspector of Police,
Odiansalai Police Station,
Puducherry,
Crime NO.11 of 2025.
2. Rajakumar
S/o Ganesh,
No.160, Pudu Nagar,
Govindasalai,
Puducherry.
Presently Residing at,
No.5921 E Hadrians,
Anaheim Hills,
California,
USA.Zip Code. 92807
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records relating to CC.No.329 of 2026 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and quash the same in so far as
the petitioner is concerned.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Anand
For Respondent(s): Mrs.G.Djearany
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Pondy.
FOR R1
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
CC.No.329 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Puducherry, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, based on the complaint lodged by
the second respondent, the first respondent police registered an FIR in Crime
No.11 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 324, 506, 420 of
IPC r/w. 34 of IPC, alleging that, the second respondent is the son-in-law of the
first accused/petitioner herein. The daughter of the first accused and the second
respondent are residing abroad and had remitted money from their earnings for
the purchase of a property in their names. However, the accused allegedly
purchased the property in the names of the first accused and the second accused,
who is the son of the first accused. When the second respondent questioned the
same, the accused assaulted him and caused serious injuries. Upon completion
of the investigation, the first respondent police filed a final report before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, which was taken cognizance of
in C.C. No.329 of 2026.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused is
the mother-in-law of the second respondent and that there are no specific overt
acts attributed to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the entire amount
was remitted by the second respondent and his wife for the purpose of
purchasing a plot at Puducherry. However, the property was purchased in the
names of the accused. It was also contended that the respondent police failed to
conduct a fair and proper investigation, as neither the defacto complainant nor
the victim has been examined, which is fatal to the prosecution case.
3.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
4.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 341, 324, 506, 420 of
IPC r/w. 34 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
petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at
this stage.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
5.It is further seen that there are two accused in this case, namely, A1,
who is the mother-in-law of the second respondent, and A2, who is the son of
A1. The specific allegation is that both the accused induced the defacto
complainant to remit money for the purchase of land at Puducherry and, after
receiving the amount, purchased the property in their own names. When the
defacto complainant questioned the same, the accused allegedly assaulted him
and caused injuries.
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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
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.
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, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to render any finding as
to whether the initiation of the criminal proceedings was actuated by malice or
was otherwise malicious. Such an issue would necessarily require consideration
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
of the relevant facts and circumstances, which can be appropriately examined
only at the conclusion of the trial. Consequently, the grounds 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 C.C.No.329 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Puducherry. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the
trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner, the personal appearance of the
petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel after filing
appropriate application. However, the petitioner 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. 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.
11.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Puducherry.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Odiansalai Police Station,
Puducherry,
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )

CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 32598 of 2026
AND
CRL MP Nos.21455 & 21456 OF 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:20 pm )