Disposed¶25

Vasanthkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Somarasampet

Madras HC10 Nov 2025CRL OP(MD)/19797/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19797 of 2025; Sunder Mohan, J.; 10.11.2025; quashing of FIR; Crime No.440 of 2025; Inspector of Police, Somarasampet, Trichy District; Section 310(4) BNS 2023; Section 399 IPC; Section 528 BNSS 2023; dacoity; confession of first accused; weapons and chilli powder seized; investigation stage; final report within three weeks; liberty to challenge final report; Vasanthkumar; K.Durai Pandian; K.Sanjai Gandhi.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; respondent directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; petitioner at liberty to challenge the final report; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶25

Vasanthkumar Vs The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Somarasampet — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19797 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19797 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.16629 of 2025

¶7

Vasanthkumar

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Somarasampet, Trichy District. (Crime No.440/2025) ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶11

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in Crime No.440 of 2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Durai Pandian For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19797 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.440 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 310(4) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 399 of IPC).

¶18

The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner along with others were planning to commit dacoity; that when questioned by the respondent, they gave evasive replies and certain weapons and chilli powder were seized; and that on the confession of the first accused, the petitioner and another accused were implicated.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false; that except for the confession of the first accused, there is no other evidence as against the petitioner; and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra submitted that the case is still at the investigation stage and that the respondent is unable to state as to whether there is any other material as against the petitioner.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19797 of 2025

¶24

It is needless to say that if the only material available against the petitioner is the confession of the first accused, then, the chances of conviction of the petitioner are bleak and the petitioner cannot be subjected to prosecution. However, this Court is of the view that the respondent ought to be given an opportunity to collect evidence. It is stated that the petitioner is a diploma graduate and an aspirant for a Government job. Hence, the respondent shall complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, it is open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶25