FIR quashed where mistaken identity and lack of evidence failed to link the petitioner to the alleged unlawful vote.

The petitioner, an Australian citizen and Overseas Citizen of India cardholder, held a voter ID for the Erode Constituency.

After immigration officers noticed indelible ink on his finger as he was preparing to leave India, a complaint alleged that he had voted in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency.

The police registered Crime No. 306 of 2026 under Sections 172, 318(2) and 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

He denied voting in Virugampakkam and stated that he was in Tiruchirappalli on the relevant date.

The Court noted that the police had sought CCTV footage from the alleged polling station, but that request remained pending.

1. Whether the FIR alleging that the petitioner voted in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency could be sustained when his voter ID was for the Erode Constituency and the alleged identification rested on a presumed match of names

2. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in the circumstances of the case

The petition invoked Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers, including the power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The FIR cited Sections 172, 318(2) and 337 BNS and Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act; the Court did not separately discuss the elements of those offences or state a distinct legal test for quashing.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found no material showing that the petitioner had voted in the Virugampakkam constituency.

His voter ID was for Erode, and the complaint arose from a presumed identity match between the petitioner, “Chandirasekhar Ragupathy,” and a voter recorded as “Chandrasekaran Ragupathi,” based on similarities in their names and their fathers’ names.

The Court also noted that the investigation’s request for polling-station CCTV footage was still pending, while the FIR had been registered on the basis of the petitioner’s statement.

In the Court’s view, these circumstances did not justify continuing the investigation.

The criminal original petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.