S. Velmurugan vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Inspector of P

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012169642026}
S. Velmurugan
S/o. Santhanathevar,
Door NO.69, Muthuramalingapuram Main Road,
Baikkara,
Madurai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Inspector
of Police
Usilampatti Town Police Station,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
Crime No.381 of 2007
2. Ramar
S/o. Periya Yosanaithevar,
Duraisamypurampudur,
Madurai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition (MD) filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the impugned summons in
CC No. 1040 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and
Quash the same as illegal and to pass such other orders as this Honorable Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B. Prahalad Ravi
For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani,
Addl. Public Prosecutor For R1
Mr.K.Surendran for R2
for Mr.Mahendra Babu
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
ORDER
 
Heard   Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi for the petitioner, Mr. Arum Anbumani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr. K.
Surendran for the second respondent/defacto complainant. Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
and Mr.K.Surendran appeared before this Court through video conferencing.
 
          2. The defacto complainant is a member of the Kallar Kalvi  Kalagam, a
Society formed under the Societies Registration Act. The said Society    traces
its origin to Kallar Common Fund established in 1924. The petitioner alleged
that the properties and funds of the Society had been misused and properties
illegally alienated in utter violation of orders of injunction. He also alleged that
signatures found in the resolution, forming the basis of alienation,  were of
absentees and deceased members of the Society. Pursuant to the complaint, an
FIR came to be registered by the first respondent. A final report came to be
presented arraying the petitioner herein as Accused No.19.
3. Challenging the final report, the petitioner approached this Court by
way of a petition to quash in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15831 of 2016. After hearing the
petitioners and the first respondent/State, the petition was allowed by an order
dated 14.12.2020 and the charge sheet was quashed insofar as the petitioners are
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
concerned.  Pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing the trial Court
to take up the matter for trial as regards the other accused and complete the
same within a period of six months, the learned trial Judge started examination
of witnesses.
4. During the course of trial, PW1 to PW5 implicated the petitioner herein
and one D.S.Senthilvel. Consequently, the second respondent herein filed a
petition in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.1910 of 2023 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate I, Usalampatti under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge
dismissed the said application on 03.07.2023.  Aggrieved by the same, the
defacto complainant moved a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)
No.1043 of 2023. This Court issued notice in the same. After hearing the
defacto complainant and the persons whom the defacto complainant  wanted to
implead, including the petitioner herein, the Court came to a conclusion that the
order of the learned trial Judge is erroneous. This Court, by an order dated
25.04.2025, allowed the revision, set aside the order dismissing the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and directed the trial Court to proceed against the
petitioner herein and Mr.Senthilvel.
 
          5. As directed by this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Usalampatti, taking note of the fact that the accused are former Members of the
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu transferred the entire bundle to the file of
the Special Court constituted to deal with the cases relating to MLAs and MPs.
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, received the papers and issued
summons, as directed by this Court on 25.04.2025, to the petitioner herein and
to Mr.Senthilvel. This was by an order dated 07.05.2026. Challenging the same,
the present petition.
 
          6. It is the plea of Mr.Prahalad Ravi that as the proceedings have been
quashed against the revision petitioner as early as 2020, issuance of summons to
the petitioner herein all over again is an abuse of process of law. He states that
the learned Magistrate has not taken note of the order passed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.15831 of 2016 dated 14.12.2020 and therefore, this order is required
to be set aside.
7. Rejecting this plea, Mr. Arun Anbumani  and Mr.Surendran point out
that the learned Magistrate has no option but to issue the summons, as this
Court had set side the order passed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1910 of 2023 dated
03.07.2023 and had directed issuance of summons to the petitioner and
Senthilvel. They seek dismissal of this petition.
 
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and I have
gone through the records.
9. I am entirely in agreement with the respondents herein. Mr.Prahalad
Ravi is right that initially this Court had come to a conclusion that the final
report presented against the petitioner and co-accused deserved to be quashed.
However, during the course of trial, as PW1 to PW5 had spoken about the role
of the petitioner and Mr.Senthilvel, this Court had directed to proceed against
them as required under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. A Magistrate, being subordinate
to this Court, is duty bound to implement the order passed by this Court. When
the High Court had directed the learned Magistrate to proceed against the
petitioner and Mr.Senthilvel on 25.04.2025, I am afraid the learned Magistrate
had no other option than to issue the impugned summons.
        10.  It is the plea of Mr.Prahalad Ravi that the petitioner was not heard
before the order was passed in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1043 of 2023. This submission
in my view is not correct. A perusal of the order copy produced by the
respondents shows that the petitioner had engaged the services of one
Mr.T.Padmanaban to represent him before this Court. The further argument of
Mr.Prahalad Ravi that this Court had not taken note of the order passed in
Crl.O.P.No.15831 of 2016 dated 14.12.2020 is equally erroneous. In paragraphs
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
4 and 5 of the order, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Velmurugan had specifically
referred to the order passed in the quash petition. Thereafter, he considered the
scope of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. He was convinced that the order of the trial
Court dismissing the petition to issue summons despite the deposition made by
PW1 to PW5 was erroneous. In other words, this Court had considered the order
passed in the quash petition as well as had heard learned counsel for the
petitioner herein and only thereafter proceeded to allow the revision. Hence,
both the submissions made by Mr.Prahalad Ravi deserve to be rejected.
Accordingly, they are rejected.
11. Having come to the conclusion that the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at
Madurai has to implement the order of the Court, nothing remains to be
considered in this revision. It is absolutely frivolous. Accordingly, the Criminal
Original Petition is dismissed. I should add here that this order will not stand in
the way of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.
(MD) No.1043 of 2023 dated 25.04.2025.
12-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KAL
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Inspector of Police
Usilampatti Town Police Station,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
Crime No.381 of 2007
2. Ramar
S/o. Periya Yosanaithevar,
Duraisamypurampudur,
Madurai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KAL
CRL OP(MD) No. 17461 of 2026
12-10-2026
c
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:04 pm )