B.Aandiappan vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012511062026}
AND
CRL MP NO. 21117 OF 2026
1. B.Aandiappan
S/o Babu,
No.394, Nookampadi Village,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.
2. L.Elumalai
S/o Lakshmanan,
1741, Vengikkal Pudur Post,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Thiruvannamalai East Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
Crime no.375 of 2026.
2. Dharani
W/o Balakrishnan,
No.19/12, 3rd Street,
Puthuvaaniyangulam,
Thiruvannamalai.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR in
Crime No.375 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Rajarajan
For R1: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime
No.375 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences
under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 131, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman
(Amendment) Act, 2002, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the
wife of late Balakrishnan; the said Balakrishnan entered into an agreement with
one Malliga, wife of Ramalingam, for the purchase of the property admeasuring
1.29 acres comprised in Survey Nos.111/4 and 111/5 situated at Northampoondi
Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District; for purchasing the aforesaid land,
he obtained loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from the first petitioner herein; as
a security for the aforesaid loan, a registered sale deed was executed in favour
of the first petitioner for the extent of 79 cents and Balakrishnan obtained sale
deed in his favour of 59 cents; again Balakrishnan obtained loan to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/- and as a security, he had executed a power of attorney in favour
of the first petitioner for the remaining 59 cents; within one week from the date
of execution of power of attorney, the first petitioner had executed the sale deed
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
in favour of the second petitioner; the first petitioner had also obtained interest
for the loan lent to the said Balakrishnan; in view of the increase of the price of
the land, the first petitioner refused to sign and execute the sale deeds to the
purchasers identified by the said Balakrishnan; therefore, he lodged a complaint
to the respondent police; while so, Balakrishnan died in a road accident on
07.01.2026; thereafter, the de facto complainant approached the petitioners and
requested them to return the land after receiving the loan amount; the petitioners
refused to execute the sale deed and therefore, the de facto complainant lodged
a complaint on 04.09.2026 before the District Crime Branch; while that being
so, the petitioners, on 10.09.2026 around 5.30 p.m., intercepted the de facto
complainant near KVM Hospital, abused and threatened her in filthy language,
grabbed her hair and severely bet her. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution and there is a matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and the second respondent/ de facto complainant. Without any base,
the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.375 of 2026 for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 131, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002, as against the petitionerd. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the first
respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be
investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that
the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such
this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery
has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in the Code.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in it’s judgment reported in
2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State
of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the
learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to
apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence
whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the
materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must
not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to
conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken
for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do
not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it
can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a
meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading
of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there
would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process,
it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of
the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal
complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made
therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the
judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. , as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under
Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
Section 482
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.375 of 2026 and file a final report
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,
before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. Connected
Crl.M.P. is closed.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsd
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Thiruvannamalai East Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
nsd
CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:19 pm )