Antim Singhi vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 30312 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. 30312 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012458972026}
1. Antim Singhi
Executive Member of the Admissions and
Terminations,
Scrutinising Committee,
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
2. Sindhuja Jagadeesh
Member,
Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC)
and Planning and Project Development
Coordinator,
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3. Joel Selvaraj @ Van Liende Joel
Member of the Admissions and Terminations
Registry,
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4. Murali @ Murial Jacqueline Pavel Marieghion
Member of the Admissions and Terminations
Scrutinising Committee,
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
..Petitioners
Vs
1. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District – 605 111.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
2. Arun Prakash Ambathy
S/o. Kumarasamy,
Staff Quarters,
Revelation Forest,
Auroville, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.133
of 2026 on the file of the Auroville Police Station, Villupuram District and
Quash the same.
For Petitioners: Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Anirudh A Sriram
For Respondents: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.133 of 2026
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 304(2) of BNS, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2026, the accused
along with 15 other individuals barged into the Council room and assaulted the
defacto complainant with a knife, while abusing him. They further threatened
the defacto complainant to hand over his mobile phone and laptop. When the
defacto complainant refused to comply, the accused forcibly snatched the
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
mobile phone and laptop. Upon the defacto complainant attempting to protect
his property, the accused assaulted him again. Based on the complaint given by
the defacto complainant, the first respondent police registered the FIR in Crime
No.133 of 2026 for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3),
304(2) of BNS.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that for the very same set of allegations already another complaint
lodged by the second respondent and that has been stated by this Court in
Criminal Original Petition No.21889 of 2026. The second respondent has
terminated from their Council and despite challenged the above order and it is
pending before the appellate authority. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the 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. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the earlier FIR is
completely different from the present occurrence. Further, it is seen from the
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
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.
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
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
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
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
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
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  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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stand
dismissed.
26-10-2026
msv/arl
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
The Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District – 605 111.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
MSV
CRL OP No. 30312 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )