Dismissed¶31

Hariharan v. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2026CRL OP/8386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition under S.528 BNSS by Hariharan against the final report in C.C.No.230/2019 (Ss.294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC) before Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tiruvallur; dismissed (06-04-2026, M. Nirmal Kumar, J.) as the trial was part-heard with seven witnesses examined; grievances regarding the un-investigated counter complaint (Police Standing Order 566) and the petitioner's own injuries and treatment were directed to be raised as defence at trial.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not inclined to entertain the quash petition at this stage. ¶29

Hariharan Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 8386 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 8386 of 2026

¶7

Hariharan

¶8

S/o.Radakrishnan, No. 47, Angalamman Koil Street, Tirunindravur.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police T-11, Tirunindravur Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

Veeramani S/o.Jeyaraman, No. 45, Angalamman Koil Street, Tirunindravur.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in C.C.No. 230/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, at Tiruvallur quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Jotheeswaran

¶16

For Respondent(s): M/S. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PP for R1

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 8386 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.230 of 2019 for the offences under sections 294[b], 324 and 506[ii] of IPC filed this quash petition.

¶22

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner lodged a counter complaint against the defacto complainant which has not been considered by the first respondent and no investigation has been conducted, which clearly violates Police Standing Order 566. He further submitted that the petitioner was also injured and took treatment in the Government Hospital and he had also produced Accident Register copy and the petitioner had suffered bleeding injury. Whereas, the defacto complainant had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and based on the same the present case has been registered and final report has also been filed against the petitioner. Hence, seeks to quash the same.

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial is

¶24

half way through and already 7 witnesses have been examined and at this stage, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained in a petition filed to quash final report.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 8386 of 2026

¶28

In view of the above submissions, the petitioner can raise all his

¶29

defence during the trial. The trial Court shall consider with regard to the counter complaint and with regard to violation of Police Standing Orders 566 and also with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, at the time of trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain

¶30

this petition at this stage.

¶31