Allowed¶26

G.Ravindran v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Jul 2026CRL OP/17001/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of second FIR - Crime No.10 of 2026, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District - second FIR for same offence against same accused as Crime No.8 of 2026 cannot stand - first FIR under BNS sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) - petition under Section 528 BNSS - G.Ravindran v. State of Tamilnadu and Madhubalan, SSI - incident of 17.01.2026 - order by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dated 03-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 quashed, with liberty to the respondent police to record the Special Sub-Inspector's statement as a witness and investigate the incident under Crime No.8 of 2026, liberty to the petitioner to furnish information to the Investigating Officer, and the connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶26

G.Ravindran Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the second FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026, registered for the same offence alleged against the same accused as Crime No.8 of 2026, can stand.

¶24

Court's answer

Since both incidents relate to the same offence alleged against the same accused, the second FIR (Crime No.10 of 2026) cannot stand and is required to be quashed.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 shall stand quashed; the respondent police may record the Special Sub-Inspector's statement as a witness and proceed with investigation of the same incident with reference to Crime No.8 of 2026, and the petitioner may furnish information to the Investigating Officer.

¶27

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that the allegation is false and nobody was injured cannot be accepted on his mere ipse dixit; it is a matter for the investigating authority to consider during investigation.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Held by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., 03-07-2026, CRL OP No.17001 of 2026, filed under Section 528 of BNSS): where a second FIR is registered in respect of the same offence alleged against the same accused arising from the same incident, the second FIR cannot stand and must be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 of Kumaratchi Police Station was quashed; the earlier Crime No.8 of 2026 (offences under sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS) remains the basis of investigation, with liberty to the police to record the Special Sub-Inspector's statement as a witness and to the petitioner to furnish information to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner's plea that the allegation was false and nobody was injured was not accepted on his ipse dixit and was left to the investigating authority.

¶1

CRL OP No. 17001 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 17001 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.11273 of 2026

¶6

G.Ravindran S/o. Govindan, No.340/3, Koppadist, Keelakarai, Kumaratchi Post, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶10

Madhubalan Special Sub Inspector, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Cr.No.10 of 2026 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District (1st respondent) and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Geetha For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu For R1

¶14

Page1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 17001 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in Cr.No.10 of 2026 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District (1st respondent) and quash the same.

¶19

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu for the first respondent and on perusal of the materials record of the case.

¶20

3.Upon considering the case, the gravamen of the allegation is that one Aravindan is a Pumbai Artist and after work, when he along with his friend Singaravadivel was returning to his native village on 17.01.2026 at about 10.45 p.m. in the night., they stop their vehicles at a particular place and consumed liquor and they were about to start, the accused intercepted and enquired about their identity. Even though the defacto complainant revealed the correct identity, still suspecting him, he was verbally abused and also attacked with an iron rod and as such the aggrieved person gave a complaint which was registered in crime No.8 of 2026 for the alleged offences under sections 126(2), 296 (b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS.

¶21

__________ Page2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 17001 of 2026

¶24

4.It can also be seen that the injured person had made a call to 100 on the basis of which, the Special Sub-Inspector had also reported about the same incidents and yet another FIR in crime No.10 of 2026 was registered by the same police station. Considering the fact that both the incidents are relating to the same offence alleged against the same accused, the second FIR cannot stand and as such the same requires to be quashed.

¶25

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation itself is false and nobody was injured. But however, the same cannot be accepted on the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner. The same has to be considered by the investigating authority during the course of investigation.

¶26

6.In view thereof, this criminal original petition in Crl.OP.No.17001 of 2026 stands allowed on the following terms.

¶27

(i). The FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police shall stand quashed. However, it will be open for the respondent police to record the statement of the said Special Inspector as a witness and proceed with the investigation in respect of the same incident with reference to Crime No.8 of 2026.

¶28

(ii). It will be open for the petitioner to furnish such information, if he chooses to before the Investigating Officer.

¶29

Page3 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP No. 17001 of 2026

¶32

(iii). Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

03-07-2026