Ashok Kumar vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31466 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. 31466 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012377102026}
and
CRL MP No. 20874 of 2026,CRL MP No. 20875 of 2026
1. Ashok Kumar
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of
Police
Cyber Crime Division - II (CCD-II),
Vellore. Crime No.29 of 2022
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To call for the records in CC.No.1966 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Vellore and quash the Final Report/Charge Sheet and all
consequential proceedings in so far as the petitioner accused No.2 (Ashok
Kumar) is concerned.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.Vijayaraj
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.1966 of
2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Vellore, thereby taken
1 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
cognizance for the offences under Sections 354D, 509 and 109 of IPC read with
Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technoloty Act, 2000 in Crime No.29
of 2022, as against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2022, Accused No. 1
(Vijayakumar) sent messages depicting a morphed/obscene image of the defacto
complainant as a WhatsApp profile picture. The sole allegation against the
Petitioner (A-2, Ashok Kumar) in the Final Report is that he handed over a SIM
card bearing mobile number 7395900767 registered in his name to Accused No.
1 (A-1). Based entirely on the alleged confession statement of A-1, the 1st
Respondent Police implicated the Petitioner under Section 109 IPC for
abetment.
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.29 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 354D, 509 and 109 of
IPC read with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technoloty Act, 2000, as
against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1966
of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Vellore. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
2 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
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.
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 354D, 509 and 109 of
IPC read with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technoloty Act, 2000.
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
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
3 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
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
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
4 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
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.1966 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate III, Vellore. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before
the trial Court. 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.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
30-10-2026
5 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ab
6 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate III, Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
3. The Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime Division - II (CCD-II),
Vellore. Crime No.29 of 2022
7 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31466 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
ab
CRL OP No. 31466 of
2026
and CRL MP No. 20874
of 2026,CRL MP No.
20875 of 2026
30-10-2026
8 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )