Arunkumar vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31154 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. 31154 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012505312026}
AND CRL MP NO. 20676 OF 2026
Arunkumar
S/o Kannan,
No.7, B Iyappa Nagar,
Second Street,
Papanaickenpalayam Road,
Kanuvai,
Coimbatore,
Tamilnadu.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Periyanaickenpalayam,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore.
Crime No.12 of 2026.
2. A.Divya
W/o Arunkumar,
No.24/7, Ashok Nagar,
Kavundampalayam Junction,
Near St.Joseph Church,
Kavundampalayam,
Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore District,
Tamilnadu.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records in Crime No.12 of 2026 ( On the file of the 1st
Respondent Police Station) and to quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Ashokkumar
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the
records pertaining to Crime No.12 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent
police and to quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his family
members had cheated the defacto complainant and that the petitioner had been
in a physical relationship with the defacto complainant for a period of three
years on the promise of marriage. When their relationship came to the
knowledge of their respective families, the petitioner allegedly refused to marry
her and threatened her with dire consequences if she caused any trouble. The
petitioner further allegedly threatened to circulate the intimate photographs and
videos of the defacto complainant on social media. Pursuant to her complaint
before the All Women Police Station, Central Police Station, Coimbatore, the
petitioner and his family members sought ten days' time to make arrangements
for the marriage. Accordingly, the petitioner married the defacto complainant on
12.02.2025 at Marudamalai Murugan Temple, Coimbatore, in the absence of his
family members. After the marriage, the petitioner allegedly pledged the
jewellery belonging to the defacto complainant to meet his expenses and
refused to lead a matrimonial life with her. His family members allegedly
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
demanded 50 sovereigns of gold as dowry. Further, his brother allegedly
threatened to murder the father of the defacto complainant, while his brother-in-
law also allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and demanded dowry.
Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case was
registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3),
69 and 83 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any basis, the third respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.12 of 2024 against the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 296(b), 351(3), 69 and 83 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, he prays that this
Criminal Original Petition may be allowed.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation
is almost completed and that the respondent police have only to file the final
report.
5.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. 31154 of 2026
6.On perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that specific
allegations have been made against the petitioner, prima facie attracting the
offences alleged, which require an in-depth investigation. Further, an FIR is not
an encyclopaedia and need not contain all the facts and details relating to the
alleged offences. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. This
Court finds that the FIR discloses the prima facie commission of cognizable
offences and, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
investigation. The investigating agency has to investigate and unearth the
alleged crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment reported in 2019
(14) SCC 350, in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of
Maharashtra and Others (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019) , held that
while taking cognizance and issuing summons, the learned Magistrate is
required to apply his judicial mind only for the purpose of ascertaining whether
a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused. The learned
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in
support of the complaint, as the Magistrate must not undertake an exercise to
ascertain whether such materials would ultimately lead to a conviction. Only
where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive can the complaint or FIR be considered for quashing. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, the same may be considered for
quashing. Therefore, a meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary at the
pre-trial stage to determine whether the proceedings would ultimately end in
conviction or acquittal. If, on a reading of the complaint and consideration of
the allegations therein, in the light of the statements made on oath, the
ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed, there would be no justification
for interference. 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
raised on behalf of the accused. Therefore, a criminal complaint cannot be
quashed merely on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be
civil in nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be
interdicted.
8.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others , issued the following directions:
“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;
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
..............
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 exercises its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it has only to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court
is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations
ultimately establish the commission of a cognizable offence, and
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
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, considering that the alleged occurrence
relates to the year 2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.12 of 2026 and file a final report before the
jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, if not already filed.
10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The Inspector of Police
AWPS, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore.
2.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. 31154 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 31154 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 20676 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 )