Allowed¶28

M.Ezhumalai v. Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Apr 2026CRL OP/17262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., 29.04.2026, Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023 — quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petitioners M. Ezhumlai and E. Parthiban vs State of Tamil Nadu (Kottakuppam PS, Villupuram) and Gopi; mutual/cross-complaints (Crime Nos.16 and 18 of 2017) over temple cleaning, abusive language and assault; trivial allegations concerning removal of palm tree and neem tree; both CC.No.46 of 2020 and CC.No.47 of 2020 (IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 447, 427, 506(i)) quashed; abuse of process; ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in CC.No.46 of 2020 and CC.No.47 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur; connected miscellaneous petitions (Crl.MP.Nos.11186 & 11188 of 2023) closed. ¶28

M.Ezhumalai Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023 and Crl.MP.Nos.11186 & 11188 of 2023

¶7

1.M.Ezhumlai 2.E.Parthiban

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuam District crime No.16 of 2017 2.Gopi

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the final report in CC.No.46 of 2020 pending trial on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur as the same is an abuse of process of law.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) For R2 : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023 quash the final report in CC.No.46 of 2020 pending trial on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

¶19

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2017, when the

¶20

defacto complainant’s wife-Visalakshi was cleaning the temple which he was building, the petitioners/Accused-1 and 2 came and asked her as to how she could clean their land. They also used abusive language and Accused-1 kicked Gopi in the stomach. When she fell down, Accused-2 punched in her chest. Finally, they threatened her. Hence the complaint

¶21

was preferred and the same was registered in Crime No.16 of 2017. Therefore, on completion of investigation, the first respondent filed report and the same was taken cognizance in CC.No.46 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

¶22

3 . Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.

¶23

4 . It is seen that for the very same occurrence, the first

¶24

petitioner also lodged complaint and the same was registered in crime No.18 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent. In both the FIR’s the first respondent found that both the parties are aggressors and filed final Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023 reports. In respect of the complaint of the present defacto complainant,

¶27

the trial court took cognizance in CC.No.46 of 2020. The complaint lodged by the first accused was taken cognizance in CC.No.47 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 447, 427 & 506(i) of IPC. On perusal of the entire records and on perusal of both the final reports, it is revealed that the allegations are trivial in nature and the dispute arose with regard to removal of palm tree and neem tree. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash both the proceedings since the allegations are trivial in nature.

¶28

5 . Accordingly, the entire proceedings in CC.No.46 of 2020 and CC.No.47 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, are quashed and this criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

29.04.2026

¶30

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023

¶34

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶35

lok

¶36

¶37

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur 2.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuam District 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2023

¶39

29.04.202 6

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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

M.Ezhumalai v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ezhumalai v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Seshadri Vs G.Hari

M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankar Vs C.Muthukumar

Venkatesan Vs Inspector of Police

Dr.v.Devendiran Vs The Registrar

Bala Subramanian @ Bala Subramanium Vs State Rep.by