Dismissed¶35

Sundharam alias Sudha, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Feb 2025CRL OP(MD)/461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Crl.OP(MD) No.461 of 2025 decided 05.02.2025 by P. Dhanabal J.; quashing of FIR Cr.No.613 of 2024, Thoothukudi South Police Station; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 3 TNPPDL Act 1992; Section 4 TNPHW Act 2002; quash petition premature, investigation incomplete, Court declines to curtail investigation at FIR stage; liberty reserved to challenge Final Report; allegation of false case due to family dispute rejected at this stage; petition dismissed, connected Crl.MP(MD) No.303 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

The numerous allegations levelled against the accused constituted offences and require elaborate investigation, which is not yet completed. ¶29

Sundharam alias Sudha, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL.OP(MD) NO.461 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL. O.P(MD) No.461 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

CRL. MP(MD) No.303 of 2025

¶9

1.Sundaram @ Sudha 2.Manikandan

¶10

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi. (Cr.No.613 of 2024)

¶13

2.Umathangam ... Respondents

¶14

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.613 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

¶15

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

¶16

CRL.OP(MD) NO.461 of 2025

¶17

For Respondents : Mr. R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.613 of 2024, dated 05.11.2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and they are no way connected with the alleged offences. Further, he would submit that no specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioners and there is no ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Due to family dispute, the false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Therefore, the pending First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent

¶23

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

¶24

Page No. 2 of 5

¶25

CRL.OP(MD) NO.461 of 2025

¶26

police would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/second respondent, the case was registered in Cr.No.613 of 2024, dated 05.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 and the case is under investigation and they will file Final Report within short period.

¶27

This Court has perused the entire papers and perused the First Information Report.

¶28

It is seen that there are so many allegations levelled against the

¶29

accused. Those allegations constituted offences and thereby, it needs elaborate investigation and the same is not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot curtail the investigation of the first respondent police. The petitioners have to wait till filing of the Final Report and if there is any adverse materials available as against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the Final Report in the manner known to law.

¶30