T.N.Rajendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in FIR.No.73 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

CRL.O.P.No.7305 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners, who are accused in FIR in Crime No.73 of 2023 dated 06.06.2023 for offence under Sections 294(b) & 323 IPC on the file of the 1^st respondent Police, have filed this Quash Petition.

¶20

2.Case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent was working in a textile shop of Balamurugan. The said Balamurugan owned a property at Kasba Road, Mallasamuthiram near TNR petrol bunk. The property was already measured by a surveyor. The said Balamurugan instructed the 2^nd respondent to fence the property. When the 2^nd respondent had gone to fence the property, one Satheeskumar, who had already been informed by Balamurugan to fence the property, was carrying out the fencing work with about 10 people. At that time, TNR petrol bunk owner the 1^st petitioner and his son/2nd petitioner stabbed the 2^nd respondent on his chest and neck alternately. Then they scolded the 2^nd respondent with filthy language. The 2^nd respondent escaped and informed the happening to his owner Balamurugan and got admitted in the Salem Government Hospital for treatment. On the complaint of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st

¶21

Page No.2 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

CRL.O.P.No.7305 of 2026 respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2023 for offence under Sections 294(b) & 323 IPC.

¶24

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the punishment for offence under Section 294(b) IPC is for the term which may extend three years or fine or both and the punishment for the offence under Section 323 IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the maximum punishment for the above said offences is only one year. He further submitted that as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-Section 2 after the expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation shall be (a)six months if the offence is punishable with fine only and (b)one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. As per the prosecution case, the alleged offences are Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC and the punishment does not exceed one year for the above said offences. Hence, the period of limitation for taking cognizance is only one year for the above said alleged offence.

¶25

Page No.3 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.O.P.No.7305 of 2026

¶28

4.He further submitted that the FIR in this case was registered on 06.06.2023, but till date the charge sheet not filed and the Court has not taken cognizance of the offences till date. Hence, the provision of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is applicable to the present case and there is bar for taking cognizance of the offences. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any of the alleged offences and that it is a land grabbing attempt made by the 2 nd respondent on behalf of his owner Balamurugan. No such occurrence as alleged by the respondents taken place. In view of the above, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶29

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that the 2 nd respondent was instructed by his owner Balamurugan to fence the property. When he had gone to fence the property, one Satheeskumar, who had already been informed by Balamurugan to fence the property, was carrying out the fencing work with about 10 people. At that time, TNR petrol bunk owner the 1 st petitioner and his son/2nd petitioner stabbed the 2 nd respondent on his Page No.4 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

CRL.O.P.No.7305 of 2026 chest and neck alternately. Then they scolded the 2 nd respondent with filthy language. The 2 nd respondent escaped and informed the happening to his owner Balamurugan and got admitted in the Salem Government Hospital for treatment. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case, the occurred took place on 05.06.2023 and the FIR registered on the next day on 06.06.2023. It is not in dispute that till date charge sheet not filed before the Court below.

¶33

7.The offence under Section 294(b) IPC is punishable with six months imprisonment. The offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of one year. In view of the same, the final report ought to have been filed within one year as provided under Section 468 of Cr.PC. Till date, the final report has not been filed. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the FIR pending.

¶34

Page No.5 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

CRL.O.P.No.7305 of 2026

¶37

8 .In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

¶38

FIR in Crime No.73 of 2023 dated 06.06.2023 on the file of the 1 st respondent Police is hereby quashed against the petitioners. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

24.03.2026

¶40

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2

¶41

To

¶42