Dismissed¶32

V.Ganesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Feb 2025CRL OP(MD)/1973/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR not entertainable after completion of investigation, filing of Final Report and taking of cognizance by Trial Court; remedy is to challenge the Final Report. Section 528 BNSS, 2023; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 143; Crime No.422 of 2024, Koodal Pudur Police Station; CRL.O.P.(MD) No.1973 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P.Dhanabal; decided 06.02.2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the first respondent police have already conducted investigation and filed the Final Report, this Court cannot consider the petition to quash the FIR at this stage. ¶25

V.Ganesan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL.O.P.(MD) NO.1973 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL. O.P.(MD) No.1973 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

CRL. M.P.(MD)No.1351 of 2025

¶9

V.Ganesan ... Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai city. (Cr.No.422 of 2024) 2.S.Nagalingam ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.422 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 5_

¶14

	CRL.O.P.(MD) NO.1973 of 2025
For petitioner	: Ms.S.Vedavalli
For Respondents	:Mr.K.Sakthi Kumar,
	Government Advocate (Crl) for R1 *****

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.422 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶17

According to the petitioner, the first respondent police registered a false case against the petitioner in Cr.No.422 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 143 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In fact, the defacto complainant is an advocate and there is money transaction between the accused Nos.3 and 4 with the defacto complainant. Hence, false complaint has been foisted against the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant is advocate in profession and there was a financial transaction between A3 and A4. On 05.08.2024, the petitioner went to the house of the A3. At that time, A1 to A3 were standing in the entrance of his house. While so, the police implicated this petitioner along with other

¶19

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

¶20

Page No. 2 of 5

¶21

CRL.O.P.(MD) NO.1973 of 2025

¶22

accused. The petitioner does not know about the other accused and even according to the FIR, there are no ingredients to constitute the offences to make out the case against this petitioner. Therefore, the pending FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl) for the first respondent police would submit that in this case, based on the complaint given by the second respondent, registered the case in Crime No.422 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 & 143 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thereafter, they conducted investigation and filed Final Report. The Trial Court has taken cognizance based on the Final Report. Therefore, at this stage, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

¶25

This petition is filed to quash the FIR. But, already the first respondent police conducted investigation and filed Final Report. As per

¶26

the averments of the FIR and the complaint, there are some allegations to constitute the offences. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 5_

¶28

CRL.O.P.(MD) NO.1973 of 2025

¶29

Final Report, if it is adverse against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage,

¶30

this Court cannot consider the petition to quash the FIR.

¶31