Eswaramoorthi Vs the State Rep by Its

PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.1973 r/w Section 528 of BNSS 2024, to call for the records and quash the further proceedings in STC.No.2209/2025 pending on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Viruthachalam.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

Page1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 4962 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners/A1 and A2 in S.T.C.No.2209 of 2025 filed this quash petition.

¶21

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2025 at about 7.30 p.m. the Sub Inspector of Police, Karuveppilangurichi received a complaint that at about 7.00 p.m, due to road accident, there was a death and the relatives of the deceased person namely A.Rajamurthy, Karuveppilangurichi to Devangudi main Road, opposite the land of one Mani Udayar, indulged to road Roko. On receiving the information, Sub Inspector Mr.K.Santhoshkumar, Head Constable Mr.R.Rajkumar, and Grade -I Constable, Mr.J.Manibalan, rushed to the place and saw the body of the deceased Rajamoorthy was kept in the middle of the road and his brother Eswaramoorthi and his friends Varunkumar and Vishwa and some more people assembled together and demanded closure of TASMAC shop on their apprehension that the person, who caused accident and caused the death of Rajamoorthy, was in drunken stage, hence, 11 two wheeler vehicles were parking in the middle of the road, thereby, causing obstruction to the traffic. Despite request and warning, they failed to dispose. Thereafter, a case in crime No.219 of 2025 registered for offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) BNS. Thereafter, the respondent took up investigation, examining five

¶22

__________ Page2 of 7

¶23

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

¶24

CRL OP No. 4962 of 2026

¶25

witnesses, filed a charge sheet on 05.11.2025 for offence under Sections 189 (2) and 126(2) BNS against the petitioners and two others namely Varun Kumar and Vishwa.

¶26

3.The contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is younger

¶27

brother and second petitioner is mother of deceased Rajamoorthy. On getting news about the fatality of Rajamoorthy in road accident, they rushed to the spot and found the deceased was severally injured and his face was smashed. On enquiry, they found that the person, who caused accident, just come out from TASMAC shop, on the bike in a rash and negligent manner. On hearing this, got agitated, the petitioners, family members, friends and villagers of the deceased Rajamoorthy, shown their protest. Earlier also, there was objection by the villagers to shift the TASMAC situated near the main road. It took some time to be shifted the body to the hospital, against which, caused further agony, they shown their protest, which had been projected as though they caused an road roko and obstructed the traffic.

¶28

4.In this case, listed five witnesses are all police personnel and no public

¶29

gave a complaint that their movement was affected and they were not allowed to proceed further. In this case, though 11 vehicle numbers were listed in the charge sheet, there is no material collected to show that those vehicles belong to the petitioners or who are the owners of the vehicles. None of them have been

¶30

Page3 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

CRL OP No. 4962 of 2026

¶33

projected as owners. Just on mere assumption and also to show the power of the police, the case was registered, since the petitioners only expressed their anguish and pain over the sudden death of a youngster aged about 23 years, who was in the budding stage of his life and career, which was snapped away due to an accident. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred on account of drunken driving consequent to the opening of a TASMAC shop on the main road. The first petitioner is a Diploma holder in EEE and is applying for jobs. Due to pendency of the above case, he is unable to secure any job. The second petitioner is a rustic villager and she had only shown her grief over the loss of her son. Other accused in this case are friends of the deceased.

¶34

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners along with two others had caused a road roko due to the death of Rajamoorthy. It was a road accident. Even the person, who caused accident and other person who rode on the vehicle, were also injured. The petitioners failed to understand the explanation given by the police, they and their villagers assembled and obstructed the traffic by squatting on the road and also parking 11 two wheelers. The public servants were not permitted to discharge an official duty, therefore, FIR registered, investigation completed and charge sheet filed listing five witnesses and collecting documents.

¶35

__________ Page4 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

CRL OP No. 4962 of 2026

¶38

6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the case projected against the petitioners is that they squatted on the road, caused road roko and parked 11 vehicles given in the FIR. From the charge sheet, it it seen that no public examined to show that there was any obstruction to traffic. Further, the owners of the vehicles details not collected during investigation. In this case, a slipshod manner of investigation conducted and charge sheet filed. Admittedly, brother of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner died in a road accident and due to severe impact of accident, his face could not be identified. Such was the impact of the accident, it is natural reaction for the family members to express their grief and anguish over the sudden death. Other two accused in this case are friends of the deceased. Though 11 vehicles were involved, the owners names not disclosed and only four persons shown as accused. Who are the other persons, investigation has not been done. In this case, no public lodged any compliant that traffic obstructed. Just showing of resistance would not amount to obstructing public servants in the discharge of their official duties. On going through the uncontroverted statement of witnesses and materials, this Court finds that there is no case made out against the petitioners.

¶39

Page5 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

CRL OP No. 4962 of 2026

¶42

7.In view of the above, this Court quashes the proceedings against the

¶43

petitioners. Though the other two accused have not filed any quash petition, they are also on similar lines, hence, the same is extended to them. This case

¶44

cannot be quoted against the petitioners in any manner while seeking for any higher studies or employment.

¶45