Allowed¶48

B.Ramadoss v. State by, Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Nov 2025CRL OP/29773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; discharge/acquittal analogues; exoneration on merits in departmental enquiry; same cause of action; preponderance of probabilities versus proof beyond reasonable doubt; abuse of process of court; confession statement of co-accused; no independent material against accused; PDS rice illegal transportation; Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 S.6(4); Essential Commodities Act, 1955 S.7(i)a(ii); Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation godown staff; suspension and reinstatement; Crl.O.P. under S.528 BNSS / S.482 Cr.P.C.; Madras High Court; Krishnagiri; Judicial Magistrate – I; Ashoo Surendanath Tewari CDJ 2020 SC 717.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.87 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri, are quashed.

B.Ramadoss Vs State by, Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.87 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri, are quashed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2025 against the petitioner are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process, given that he was exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings initiated on the very same cause of action, where acquittal applies the lower standard of preponderance of probabilities whereas criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendanath Tewari's case (supra), and since the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges in the departmental proceedings vide order of the Deputy Registrar/Managing Director dated 31.05.2022, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the aforesaid statement of the co-accused, there is no material suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the above crime; accordingly the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2025 against the petitioner stand quashed.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.) allows Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashes proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2025 (Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri) arising from Crime No.175 of 2021 under Sections 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(i)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (illegal transportation of 22,000 Kgs. of PDS rice), as against the petitioner arrayed as A9, a godown staff of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation alleged to have collected PDS rice and passed it to other accused for illegal transportation. Held: the petitioner was exonerated from all charges in departmental proceedings on the very same cause of action vide order of the Deputy Registrar/Managing Director dated 31.05.2022 and reinstated; and apart from the statement of a co-accused there was no material suggesting his involvement. Taking into consideration Ashoo Surendanath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW CBI and another (CDJ 2020 SC 717) — exoneration on merits in adjudication proceedings bars continuance of criminal prosecution on the same set of facts, the standard of proof in criminal cases being proof beyond reasonable doubt — the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025

B.Ramadoss

...Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. by the Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station, Krishnagiri. Crime No.175 of 2021 ...Respondent

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in C.C.No.87 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri and quash the same.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶14

proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025

¶18

2. The brief facts are as follows:-

¶19

The respondent-police registered a case in Crime No.175 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(i)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for the alleged commission of illegal transportation of 22,000 Kgs. of PDS rice without obtaining any permission by the accused persons. During the course of enquiry, based on the false confession statement given by one of the accused that the petitioner aided one R.Aasaithambi/A8, who was the godown staff of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, in illegal transportation of the PDS rice, he has been wrongly implicated in this case. On completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.87 of 2025 as against the petitioner and other accused persons and the petitioner has been arrayed as A9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶20

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶21

is an innocent person and he was not initially arrayed as an accused in the above said FIR in Crime No.175 of 2021 and solely based on the alleged confession made by one of the arrested accused, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case and other than the alleged confession said to

¶22

have been recorded from the arrested accused, there is absolutely no 2/7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025 material to implicate the petitioner in this case. He further submitted that the

¶25

departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended in his favour by holding that the petitioner is in no way connected to the alleged offence.

¶26

3.2 In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo Surendanath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW

¶27

CBI and another reported in CDJ 2020 SC 717 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as under:-

¶28

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

¶29

(vii) In case of exoneration , however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same setof facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

¶30

39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”

¶31

(emphasis supplied)

¶32

3/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025

¶35

3.3 In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, that too on merits and as the allegation made against him is found to be not sustainable, the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue, as the same would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A9 and the allegation made against the petitioner is that he, being the godown staff of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, collected the essential commodities from the godown and illegally transported the same with the help of the other accused persons.

¶37

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

6. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he collected

¶39

the PDS rice meant for public from the godown and transferred the same to 4/7

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025 the other accused for illegal transportation and the petitioner was also

¶42

placed under suspension in connection with the above said occurrence. Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, as the charges against the petitioner were not proved, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and he was subsequently reinstated into service.

¶43

7. It is the main contention of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the very same cause of action and the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental proceedings and if the petitioner was not found guilty by applying preponderance of probabilities, he cannot be prosecuted in the criminal case where the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2025 pending against the petitioner.

¶44

8. In view of the above submission and also taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendanath Tewari’s case (supra) , since the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges in the departmental proceedings, vide order of the Deputy Registrar/ Managing Director dated 31.05.2022 and also considering the fact that apart

¶45

from the aforesaid statement of the co-accused as there is no material 5/7

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.29773 of 2025 suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the above crime, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner.

¶48

9 . Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed and

¶49

the impugned proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.87 of 2025, on

¶50

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Krishnagiri, is quashed.

¶51

20.11.2025

¶52

skt

¶53

Neutral Citation: Yes/No