Disposed¶41

Duraipandiyan v. State rep.by

Madras HC1 Jul 2026CRL OP/16763/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026; D.Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; quashing of FIR; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Cr.No.18 of 2026 Thirukoilur Police Station Kallakurichi; demolition of Kula Deivam deities; abuse and threat to kill; counter complaint C.S.R.No.1325 of 2025 pending; enquiry still pending; factual averments to be gone into during investigation; prima facie finding no ground to quash FIR; liberty to place facts before Investigating Officer; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR rejected; Criminal Original Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to place their materials before the Investigating Officer, who is directed to consider them dispassionately during investigation. ¶41

Duraipandiyan Vs State rep.by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Cr.No.18 of 2026 (alleging demolition of deities worshipped as Kula Deivam by the defacto complainant, filthy abuse and threats to kill) should be quashed as an illegal abuse of the process of law.

¶25

Court's answer

The respondent police shall conduct the enquiry into the pending complaint and, depending on the enquiry report, register a case if warranted and conduct investigation.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Where the FIR averments are factual in nature, a prima facie finding is by itself no ground to quash the FIR; the factual pleas must be gone into during the course of investigation.

¶40

Key takeaways

Liberty is given to the petitioners to place on record before the Investigating Officer all the facts placed before this Court, and the Investigating Officer is directed to dispassionately consider all such aspects during the course of investigation.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.), CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026, decided 01-07-2026: Six petitioners sought quashing of the FIR in Cr.No.18 of 2026 of Thirukoilur Police Station under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. The FIR alleged the petitioners demolished deities worshipped as Kula Deivam by the defacto complainant and abused and threatened to kill the complainants. Petitioners contended the FIR was false and that on 04.12.2025 it was the defacto complainant's side who attacked them, their complaint remaining pending in C.S.R.No.1325 of 2025; the Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu stated that enquiry thereon was still pending. The Court held that where the FIR averments are factual in nature, a prima facie finding is by itself no ground to quash the FIR and the factual pleas must be examined during investigation. The respondent police were to conclude the enquiry, register a case depending on the enquiry report and investigate; liberty was given to the petitioners to place their materials before the Investigating Officer, who was directed to consider all aspects dispassionately. The Criminal Original Petition stood disposed of; the FIR was not quashed.

¶1

CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026

¶7

Duraipandiyan S/o.Anandhan, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶8

Muthulakshmi W/o.Anandhan, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶9

Sivalingam S/o.Subramaniyan, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶10

Seenuvasan S/o.Subramaniyan, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶11

Rasathi W/o.Subramaniyan, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶12

Jothi W/o.Sathish, Kuladeepamangalam, Agaram,Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶13

..Petitioner(s)

¶14

__________ Page1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026

¶17

¶18

State rep.by

¶19

The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Kallakurichi district. Cr.No.18 of 2026.

¶20

Elumalai S/o.Chinnakannu, Nedumudayan Village, Thirukoilur taluk, Kallakurichi district.

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned FIR in Cr.No.18 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent (Thirukoilur Police Station, kallakurichi district) and quash the same as an illegal abuse of the process of law.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mrs. L.Meenakshi For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the F.I.R.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel

¶27

for Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶28

Page2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026

¶31

Upon considering the F.I.R, the gist of allegations is that the petitioners are alleged to have demolished the deities which were worshipped as Kula Deivam by the defacto complainant and upon confrontation they were abused

¶32

by the petitioners with filthy language and threatened to kill them if they again enter the place in the name of worship.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire case is false and as a matter of fact prior to the above occurrence on 04.12.2025, it is the defacto complainant and others who are the aggressors and attacked the accused herein. The accused suffered injuries and even then though the said fact is recorded in the Accident Register copy by the Learned Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thirukoilur and inspite of preferring a complaint, the same is kept pending in C.S.R.No.1325 of 2025, while the police have registered the above F.I.R on the false complaint given by the second respondent.

¶34

I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Even going by the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only the factual pleas are taken that the occurrence was not there and a false complaint was given, it is the further case the different occurrence

¶36

Page3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP No. 16763 of 2026

¶39

happened on 04.12. 2025, whereby it is only the defacto complainant and others who were the aggressors and it is only the accused who was attacked. With reference to the said complaint, the Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu would submit that the enquiry is still pending.

¶40

In view thereof, let the respondent conduct the enquiry and depend on the enquriy report, the respondent police register a case and conduct investigation. If they found prima facie case that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the F.I.R, when the avernments are factual in nature and the same has to be gone into during the course of investigation and giving liberty to the petitioner to place on record all such facts they have placed before this Court before the Investigating Officer and directing the investigating officer to dispassionately consider all such aspects during the course of investigation.

¶41