Cheran vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
and CRL MP No.20311 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012234382026}
Cheran
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police
SIPCOT Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
Crime No.202 of 2026.
2. Manasa
..Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to
call for the records culminating in Crime No.202 of 2026 pending on the file of
the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohan
For Respondents: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.202 of 2026
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 329(4),
296(b), 351(2), 308(2), 127(2) of BNS read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 and Section 4 of
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 as against
the petitioner.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is an employee of Accused
No. 1 (A1), a licensed money lender. The defacto complainant's husband
borrowed ₹1.20 Crores from A1 over time and, along with his wife, repaid
approximately ₹2.30 Crores including interest. Despite this, when they
requested closure of the loan, the petitioner refused and demanded an additional
₹1.07 Crores. Allegedly, A1 and the petitioner took the husband to Shivaranjini
Hotel and threatened to eliminate him and his wife unless the balance was
settled that day. To secure his release, the husband contacted friends; one
Perumal transferred ₹10,00,000 to the account of M/s. Urban Constructions, and
another, Shanmugam, paid ₹5,00,000 in cash to the petitioner. Following his
release, A1 continued to threaten and extort the defacto complainant.
Consequently, she lodged a complaint, and the first respondent police registered
Crime No. 202 of 2026 under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 351(2), 308(2), and
127(2) of the BNS, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 1998, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the third respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.202 of 2026 for the offences under Sections
329(4), 296(b), 351(2), 308(2), 127(2) of BNS read with Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,
2003, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submits that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police has to file the 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 petitioner to attract the offence, 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.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
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
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
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
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  Section 482  Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
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
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. The first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.202 of 2026 and file a final report within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the
jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions stands closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
msv/arl
To
The Inspector of Police
SIPCOT Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
MSV
CRL OP No. 30481 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )