Allowed¶32

R.S.Rajesh v. The state by the inspector of police

Madras HC29 Jan 2026CRL OP/1388/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court quashes FIR Crime No.907 of 2022 (M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Pulianthope) under Section 528 BNSS 2023; unauthorised political protest without permission against industrial smoke emission; offences under Section 143 IPC and Sections 71A(1), 41(6)(a) Tamil Nadu City Police Act; relies on and applies Jeevanandham (2018) 2 LW (Crl) 606 and Sri Raja (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019); quashing extended to remaining similarly placed accused as abuse of process; single judge A.D.Jagadish Chandira; decided 29-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pursuant to the First Information Report in Crime No.907 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police, quashed in its entirety (extending to the remaining similarly placed accused). ¶32

R.S.Rajesh Vs The state by the inspector of police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings pursuant to the First Information Report in Crime No.907 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police, quashed in its entirety (extending to the remaining similarly placed accused).

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Crime No.907 of 2022, registered for offences under Section 143 IPC and Sections 71A(1), 41(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act arising from an unauthorised protest, should be quashed against the petitioner. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The decisions in Jeevanandham (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019) apply on all fours to the present case; no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending, and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Though the petition was filed by the petitioner alone, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue against the remaining accused, who are all similarly placed, and doing so is an abuse of process of law.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings pursuant to the First Information Report in Crime No.907 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police, are quashed in their entirety.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by R.S.Rajesh seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.907 of 2022 (P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai), registered for offences under Section 143 IPC and Sections 71A(1), 41(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, after the petitioner and others of a political party allegedly staged a protest on 21.12.2022 without prior permission, raising slogans against industrial estates for befoul emission of smoke and causing disturbance to the public. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Jeevanandham (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), where similar proceedings were quashed; the Additional Public Prosecutor fairly endorsed the submission. Holding that the said decisions apply on all fours, and that continuance against the remaining similarly placed accused (though they were not before the Court) would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process of law, A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J. allowed the petition and quashed the FIR proceedings in its entirety (order dated 29-01-2026).

¶1

CRL OP No. 1388 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

CRL OP No. 1388 of 2026

R.S.Rajesh

..Petitioner

State by

¶11

The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai. (Crime No.907 of 2022)

¶12

G.Ambethkar

¶13

The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No. 907 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor For R-1

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 1388 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.907 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶21

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2022, the petitioner

¶22

and others, who belong to a political party, without obtaining prior permission, had unlawfully staged a protest by raising slogans against the industrial estates for the befoul emission of smoke from the industries, thereby causing disturbance to the public. Therefore, the aforesaid case in Crime No.907 of 2022 was registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Section 143 of IPC and Sections 71A(1), 41(6)(a) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act.

¶23

3 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the cases in Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District reported in ( 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), in which the proceedings were quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 1388 of 2026

¶27

4 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police fairly endorsed the aforesaid submission.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

¶29

the materials available on record.

¶30

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the above said decisions would apply on all fours to the present case and that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending and hence, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed. Further, though the petition has been filed by the petitioner alone, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue against the remaining accused, who are all similarly placed, and it is an abuse of process of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

¶32

the proceedings pursuant to the First Information Report in Crime No.907 of 2022 , on the file of the respondent Police is hereby quashed in its entirety.

¶33

29-01-2026

¶34

Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

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

¶37

CRL OP No. 1388 of 2026

¶38

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.