Dismissed¶30

Yakappan @ Selvam v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2026CRL OP(MD)/10135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing petition against pending trial in C.C.No.154/2019 (JM No.IV, Madurai; Crime No.1136/2016, Jaihindpuram PS) dismissed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (L. Victoria Gowri, J., 12.02.2026): trial already commenced with five witnesses examined and documents marked; Court cannot conduct roving enquiry or mini trial — Gunmala Sales Private Ltd v. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103 relied upon; connected MPs closed.

What did the court decide?

This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial, adopting the position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others, (2015) 1 SCC 103. ¶23

Yakappan @ Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.OP(MD)No.10135 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10135 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6866 and 6867 of 2024

¶7

1.Yakappan @ Selvam 2.Balasubramaniyan ...Petitioners/ A1 & A2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State rep., by The Inspector of Police, Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. Crime No.1136 of 2016

¶10

2.Sivagurunathan ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.154 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramasamy

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.OP(MD)No.10135 of 2024

¶16

For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.P.Manoharan

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Seeking to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.154 of

¶19

2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, this

¶20

criminal original petition is filed.

¶21

2.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions, submitted that already trial has

¶22

commenced and five witnesses were examined.

¶23

3.As the substantive evidence had already come on record and documents have also been marked through witness, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, cannot conduct a roving enquiry or mini trial

¶24

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.OP(MD)No.10135 of 2024

¶28

Limited Vs., Anu Mehta and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103.

¶29

Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.