Allowed¶33

N. Gowthaman Babu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Jun 2026CRL OP/14554/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed; proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District) quashed. Key terms: Section 12 TN Gaming Act; non-cognizable offence; police investigation without prior Magistrate permission; Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. violation; FIR under Sections 182 and 211 IPC; playing cards for gain; 52 cards and cash Rs.32,000/- seized; Crime No. 353 of 2020; all three witnesses police personnel, none from public; P.W.2 deceased, P.W.1 examined; Madras High Court; Justice M. Nirmal Kumar; dated 10.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, as against the petitioner(s) ¶33

N. Gowthaman Babu Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, as against the petitioner(s)

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial proceedings under Section 12 of TN Gaming Act (a non-cognizable offence) are sustainable where the police investigated without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., and whether the proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Since the charge sheet was filed for a non-cognizable offence (Section 12 of TN Gaming Act) for which the police have no investigative power, and no prior permission had been obtained from the Magistrate, this Court held the proceedings liable to be quashed as against the petitioners

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District are quashed

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.; order dated 10.06.2026) allowed Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026, filed under Section 528 of BNSS, and quashed the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2020. The FIR had been registered under Sections 182 and 211 IPC, but the charge sheet was filed only under Section 12 of the TN Gaming Act - a non-cognizable offence which, as submitted by counsel, carries imprisonment up to 3 months or a fine of Rs.100/-. No permission contemplated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. had been obtained from the Magistrate for the investigation. Holding that the police have no power to investigate a non-cognizable offence without such prior permission, the Court found the proceedings unsustainable and quashed them against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners had also urged that none of the three witnesses was from the public (all being police personnel) and that there was no proof of any pandemic spread; the Court's ruling rested on the non-cognizable-offence/no-permission ground.

¶1

Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026

¶7

N. Gowthaman Babu ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode District, Crime No. 353 of 2020 ..Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call

¶11

for the records and quash the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District as against the petitioner without further reference.

¶12

For Petitioners : : Mr.K. Shyam Sunder For Respondent : : Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (Crl.Side)

¶13

1\4

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026

¶17

The petitioners/accused, who are facing trial in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode District, for the offence under Section 12 of TN Gaming Act have filed this quash petition.

¶18

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2020, during midnight at about 12.15 hours, when the respondent/Police was on patrol duty, they found the petitioners near the farm of one Gowtham Babu/1st petitioner herein. Petitioners 1 to 4 were sitting in a circle and playing cards for gain and they were apprehended with 52 cards and cash of Rs.32,000/-. On completion of investigation, listing 3 witnesses, all police personnel, charge sheet was filed and the same has been taken cognizance in STC No. 332 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode District.

¶19

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶20

Section 12 of TN Gaming Act is a non-cognizable offence and the punishment is either imprisonment upto 3 months or a fine of Rs.100/-. The

¶21

2\4

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026

¶24

Police have no power to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the Magistrate. Hence, Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been violated. That being so, the very foundation of the case itself is not sustainable. Further, in this case, on factual aspects, none from the public has been examined as a witness and all the witnesses are police personnel. Moreover, there is no proof to show that any of the petitioners was suffering from pandemic and due to they being together, there was any spread of pandemic. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶25

4 . Learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, though the FIR was registered for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 IPC, charge sheet was filed only under Section 12 of TN Gaming Act. However, no permission has been obtained as contemplated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C from the Magistrate. He further submitted that the case in the midst of trial and P.W.2 is no more and P.W.1

¶26

has been examined.

¶27

5 . Heard both sides.

¶28

6 . Considering the fact that the charge sheet has been filed for a non-cognizable offence, for which the Police have no power and no 3\4

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P. No. 14554 of 2026

¶31

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

¶32

¶33

prior permission had also been obtained from the Magistrate to do so, this Court is of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as against the petitioners. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No. 332 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, are quashed.

¶34

10.06.2026

¶35

nv To

¶36