Disposed

Rajendran v. State rep.by its

Madras HC15 Apr 2026CRL OP/9202/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of an FIR alleging assault and criminal intimidation, contending it was a counter-blast to an earlier complaint against the de facto complainant's family. The court, noting both cross-cases were being jointly investigated per Full Bench precedent, directed filing of a final report preferably within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; police directed to file final report preferably within six months from receipt of copy of order.

Rajendran Vs State rep.by its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶7

Rajendran S/o.Kuppusamy,

¶8

Gopal S/o.Kuppusamy,

¶9

Mangai W/o.Kuppusamy,

¶10

Jayanthi W/o.Gopal,

¶11

Kuppusamy S/o.Chinnaiya,

¶12

Ponnusamy S/o.Chinnaiya, All are Residing at Meljimarathur Village, Aatiyanur Post,

¶13

Jamunamarathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. FIR No.20/2025,

¶14

..Petitioner(s)/A1 to A6

¶15

¶16

State rep. by its, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jamunamarathur Police station, Jamunamarathur. FIR No.20/2025.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶20

Santhi W/o.Devaraj, Meljimarathur Village, Aatiyanur post, Jamunamarathur taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for records pertaining to the FIR No.20/2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Arunkumar for M/s.K.J.Gajapathy For Respondent-1: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners/A1 to A6 in Crime No.20 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023, on the file of the first respondent Police based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, had filed this quash petition.

¶26

2.The contention of the petitioners is that a false case has been given by

¶27

the second respondent/de facto complainant stating that the petitioners attacked and threatened the de facto complainant and her family members. In fact, there was a land dispute between the petitioners and de facto complainant’s family and a case in Crime No.19 of 2025 registered against the second respondent and

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶31

her family members. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been lodged

¶32

against the petitioners.

¶33

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is a matter of case in counter. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.20 of 2025 which came to be registered based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant and the petitioners have lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant and others, which is pending investigation in Crime No.19 of 2025. Both the cases are being investigated jointly following the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in T. Balaji and Another V. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in (2024(2) LW (Crl.) 175) and Police Standing Order (PSO) 566.

¶34

4.Recording the above submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction that the final report shall be filed, more preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

15-04-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI

¶37

__________ Page3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶40

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶41

RSI

¶42

¶43

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jamunamarathur Police station, Jamunamarathur.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶45

CRL OP No. 9202 of 2026

¶46

15-04-2026

¶47

__________ Page4 of 4

¶48

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

Rajendran v. State rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. State rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridharan Vs State of Tamilnadu rep. by

T.Arjun Vs The state rep.by, Inspector of Police

Sasikumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

V.R. Rambhad Vs Deputy Director

Dhayanithi Kittusamy Vs State rep.by

S.Preethi Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by