Leela vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012335162026}
AND CRL MP NOS.20550 & 20551 OF 2026
Leela
W/o Vijayanand,
No.78, GNT Road,
Verkadu Village,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sipcot,
Tiruvallur and District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
F2-Sipcot Police Station,
Gummidipoondi,
Tiruvallur District.
3. Santhi,
W/o Anandaraj,
No.78, GNT Road,
Verkadu Village,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the SC No.4 of 2025 pending on the
file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and to
quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the
records pertaining to S.C.No.4 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, and to quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, the third
respondent herein, a retired nurse, and her minor daughter, Gopika, had been
residing as tenants in the petitioner's premises for about three years. The
petitioner had previously worked under the third respondent as a junior nurse. It
is alleged that, owing to their Scheduled Caste status, the petitioner started
discriminating against and harassing them. On 11.02.2024, the petitioner
allegedly abused Gopika in filthy language and attempted to assault her when
she tried to park her vehicle. When questioned by the third respondent, the
petitioner allegedly trespassed into her house and hurled caste-based abuses at
them. Further, on 12.03.2024, the petitioner allegedly abused them by referring
to their caste, locked the house, disconnected the electricity supply and
threatened to forcibly evict them. On 13.03.2024, the petitioner allegedly
entered their house, removed their household articles and prevented the third
respondent and her daughter from entering the premises. Hence, the third
respondent lodged a complaint dated 14.03.2024 with the respondent police.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
Based on the said complaint, the respondent police initially registered Crime
No.283 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC,
read with Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequently, the
provisions were altered to include Sections 341 and 448 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(z)
and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. Upon completion of the
investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, which was taken on file as
S.C.No.4 of 2025 and is pending trial.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute
is purely one between a landlord and a tenant. The third respondent had failed to
pay rent for a considerable period. Therefore, in order to escape from the
consequences of non-payment of rent, the third respondent has foisted a false
complaint against the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing
this Criminal Original Petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
5.On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the
witnesses, it is revealed that the petitioner is the landlord and the third
respondent is a tenant. In order to evict the tenant, the petitioner allegedly
committed serious offences against the defacto complainant. There are specific
allegations against the petitioner, which are sufficient to attract the offences
under Sections 341 and 448 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(z) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, 1998. The veracity of the allegations can be determined only at
the stage of trial, upon appreciation of the evidence. The grounds raised by the
petitioner 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 a petition seeking
to quash the entire criminal proceedings, held that the High Court has no
jurisdiction to appreciate the statements of witnesses and record a finding that
there are inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, no prima facie case
is made out against the accused. Such an exercise can be undertaken only by the
trial Court while deciding the matter on merits or by the appellate Court while
deciding an appeal arising out of the final order.
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
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 Court cannot
record findings on disputed questions of fact. The defence raised by the accused
has to be tested upon appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the
course of trial. Therefore, this Court cannot undertake an adjudication of
disputed questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction 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.P.Meenakshi & Anr., held that while considering a petition seeking to quash
a complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity or sufficiency of the evidence available. All that the Court is
required to examine is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the
ingredients constituting the offences alleged. Further, the Court may examine
whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied
with and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
their entirety, would constitute the offences alleged. Whether the accused would
be able to disprove the allegations in a manner known to law is a matter to be
considered only at a later stage, namely, during the trial.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
9.Further, this Court cannot, at this stage, record a finding as to whether
the initiation of the criminal proceedings is malicious or not. The same can be
considered only upon proper appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the
grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing the final report/charge sheet
cannot be entertained at this stage.
10.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in S.C.No.4 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The petitioner is at liberty to
raise all the grounds available to her 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 a copy of this order.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
28-10-2026
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: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sipcot,
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
F2-Sipcot Police Station,
Gummidipoondi,
Tiruvallur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 31092 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NOS.20550 & 20551 OF 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )