K. Ashok Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

¶1

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026 AND CRL MP NO. 5856 OF 2026

¶7

K. Ashok Kumar MLA, Krishnagiri S/o. Krishnamoorthy, House No.5/190, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Krishnagiri-635001.

¶8

Tamilselvam MLA, Uthangarai, S/o. Manickam, 23, Darmaththoppu, Sivampatti Post, Krishnagiri-635203.

¶9

C.V. Rajendran Ex-MLA, Bargu S/o. Venkatasamy, 2/335, Chinthagampalli, Village Bargur R.F., Krishnagiri-635104.

¶10

Manoranjitham Ex-MLA, Uthangarai W/o. Nagarajan, Door No.133 (2), Boganpalli, Krishnagiri-635001.

¶11

Krishnamoorthy Ex-MLA, Bargur S/o. Ellappa Gounder, Door No.64/72, Kommampattu Village,

¶12

__________ Page1 of 9

¶13

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

¶14

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶15

Govindhapuram Post, Uthangarai, Krishangiri-635307.

¶16

P.N.A. Kesavan S/o. Narayanan, Door No.147/53A, Gandhi Road, Krishnagiri-635001.

¶17

KPM. Sathish Kumar S/o. Munusamy, Door No.1, Jinnah Street, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri-635112.

¶18

J. Jeyakumar S/o. Jayabalan, Door No.1/32, Muthuran Kottai, Kalvehalli, Katteri, Krishnagiri-635101.

¶19

..Petitioner(s)

¶20

Vs

¶21

The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶22

Mr. Mohammed Suban, Village Administrative Officer (VAO), No.89, Kattiganapalli, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶23

..Respondent(s)

¶24

PRAYER: This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking to call for the records with respect to the F.I.R in Crime No.666 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri / 1st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 9

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶28

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Tamil Selvan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar, GA(Crl.Side) for R1

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call

¶31

for the records with respect to the F.I.R in Crime No.666 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri / 1st respondent herein and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶32

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2024 near Anna Statue, Krishnagiri New Bus Stand, the petitioners and others, who belong to AIADMK political party, without obtaining prior permission, had unlawfully assembled and conducted a protest, condemning the failure of the State Government in preventing incidents of sexual violence and harassment against women in various districts, thereby causing disturbance to the public. Based on a complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer, a case in Crime No.666 of 2024 was registered by the respondent Police for offences under Sections 126(2) and 189 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023(corresponding to Sections 341 & 141 IPC).

¶33

__________ Page3 of 9

¶34

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

¶35

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶36

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged

¶37

occurrence is said to have happened on 30.12.2024 and the complaint was registered on the same day. He pointed out that the maximum punishment for the aforesaid offences being imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, the first respondent ought to have completed the investigation and filed the final report within a period of one year from the date of registration of the FIR, i.e. on or before 30.12.2025 as mandated under Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, in this case, the final report has not been filed till date. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners based on the said FIR, is an abuse of process of law and accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.666 of 2024 registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶38

4. The l earned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit

¶39

that the 1^st accused in this case, moved a petition in Crl.O.P.No.31778 of 2025 before this Court and by order dated 27.11.2025, this Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. He would rely upon the orders passed in the cases of Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District reported in ( 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), in which

¶40

__________ Page4 of 9

¶41

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

¶42

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶43

the proceedings were quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the FIR pending against the petitioners.

¶44

5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is pending and there is one more accused involved apart from the petitioners herein. He would further submit that while the State Government has been taking initiative to prevent the sexual violence and harassment against the women and children in the State, the petitioners and others have unnecessarily conducted the protest and caused disturbance to the public.

¶45

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶46

For offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 189 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 , the final report ought to have been filed within one year from the date of registration of the FIR, as per Section 468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, it has been reported that the investigation is still pending and no final report has been filed.

¶47

Page5 of 9

¶48

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

¶49

CRL OP No. 8267 of 2026

¶50

Further, the case against the first accused in this case has been quashed

¶51

by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31778 of 2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025. That apart, the above said two decisions in Jeevanandham (supra) and Sri Raja (supra) would apply on all fours to the present case. Hence, no useful purpose will be served even if the final report is filed against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioners. Further, though this petition has been filed by the present petitioners, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue as against the remaining accused, who are all similarly placed and hence, the continuation of the same, is an abuse of process of law .

¶52

Ergo , for the aforementioned reasons, this Criminal Original Petition

¶53

stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.666 of 2024 , pending on the file of the 1st respondent police, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners as well as in

¶54

respect of the other accused. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed .

¶55

30-03-2026

¶56

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶57

DN

¶58

__________ Page6 of 9

¶59

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