Dismissed¶35

Radha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Feb 2026CRL OP(MD)/23171/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quash petition dismissed; Crime No.311 of 2025 (suspicious death by hanging; S.194(1) BNSS 2023; S.238 BNS 2023) not quashed at initiation of investigation; mini-trial bar under S.482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS; clean-hands finding (petitioners' affidavit of 10:30 PM funeral contradicted records showing death 6.30 AM, cremation 10:30 AM); witness statements under S.161(3) Cr.PC re body removed from hanging position; police directed to conclude investigation within 2 months; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice L. Victoria Gowri; dated 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

A careful reading of the records shows the deceased died at 6.30 AM and was cremated at 10:30 AM, contradicting the petitioners' affidavit stating the funeral was conducted at 10:30 PM on 30.10.2020. ¶31

Radha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.311 of 2025, registered against the petitioners (Accused No.1 to 5) for offences under Sections 194(1) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 238 of BNS, 2023, should be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Court finds material in the first information report registered by the first respondent police against the petitioners.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

A careful reading of the records shows the deceased died at 6.30 AM and was cremated at 10:30 AM, contradicting the petitioners' affidavit stating the funeral was conducted at 10:30 PM on 30.10.2020.

¶31

Key takeaways

Clear witnesses had already given proper statements under Section 161(3) Cr.PC to the first respondent police as to the factum of having removed the body of the deceased from the hanging position; in their presence the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands.ratio¶31
A perusal of the final report and the materials placed on record prima facie reveals the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence, and the statement of the witnesses, if accepted as they stand, would clearly disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (L. Victoria Gowri, J., 10.02.2026) — Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23171 of 2025: Quash petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by Accused No.1 to 5 (family members/relatives of the deceased Rajkumar) seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.311 of 2025 of V.K.Pudur Police Station, Tenkasi District, registered 30.10.2025 on the complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant for offences under Sections 194(1) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 238 of BNS, 2023 concerning the suspicious death of Rajkumar — DISMISSED. Petitioners contended a natural death by heart attack and that the prosecution narrative linking the death to the daughter's 2022 love marriage was unsustainable (alleging death on 30.10.2020); the State relied on its counter affidavit and witness statements (L.W.11 Vaithiyalingam; L.W.18 Palkani) that the body was brought down from a hanging position. Held: (i) records show death at 6.30 AM and cremation at 10:30 AM, contradicting the petitioners' affidavit of a 10:30 PM funeral on 30.10.2020 — petitioners did not approach the Court with clean hands; (ii) witnesses had given statements under Section 161(3) Cr.PC as to removing the body from the hanging position, and the Court found material in the FIR; (iii) the final report and materials prima facie reveal the petitioners' involvement and the witness statements, if accepted, disclose the essential ingredients of the offences; (iv) interference at this stage would amount to an impermissible mini trial under Section 482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS — an FIR ought not be quashed at the very initiation of investigation. Investigation directed to be concluded within 2 months.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 10.02.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23171 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)No.20098 of 2025

¶6

1.Radha

¶7

2.S.T.Raji

¶8

3.Navaneethakrishnan

¶9

4.Poovarasan 5.Sakthivel ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, V.K.Pudur Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.311 of 2025) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Chandran ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.311 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st Respondent police and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manianandh For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to quash the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.311 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st Respondent police.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the instance of the second respondent, Village Administrative Officer, First Iinformation Report was registered against the petitioners in Crime No.311 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 194(1) of BNSS, 2023 & Section 238 of BNS, 2023 on 30.10.2025. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.2025, while the defacto complainant was on duty, he was informed that one Rajkumar, son of Duraisamy, aged about 47 years, who is none other than the first petitioner's husband had died suspiciously. In this regard, when he had proceeded to the residence of the deceased person for inquiry, he was informed that the said person died at 06:30 a.m, and his relatives had performed his funeral at about

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

10:30 a.m. Since the same was found suspicious, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint. For which, the First Information Report in Crime No.311 of 2025 was registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not at all suspicious death and the deceased person had passed away due to heart attack. Following which, the body was kept in the house till 10:30 PM wherein all the relatives had attended and thereafter, body was cremated at about 10:30 PM.

¶24

The narative of the prosecution is that the deceased has committed suicide because of the love marriage of his daughter. However, he pointed out that the date of death of the deceased person is 30.10.2020 and the date of marriage of his daughter was in the year 2022 and hence, the same cannot be interconnected and the entire prosecution narrative is not sustainable and sought for allowing the petition.

¶25

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent categorically contended that it is a clear case of suspicious death where the deceased had died by hanging himself and the same could be clearly

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

substantiated from the statement obtained from L.W.11, Vaithiyalingam, who

¶29

had given clear statement that he brought down the body from the hanging position along with one Palkani, L.W.18. In the presence of such substantiating statements obtained from the reliable witnesses, there is substance in the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent and the matter has to be tested before the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

No doubt, all the petitioners are the family members and relatives of the deceased Rajkumar, son of Duraisamy. This Court has keenly observed that the petitioners have filed the affidavit stating that the funeral was conducted at 10:30 PM on the fateful day of 30.10.2020. However, a careful reading of the records would make it clear that the person died on 6.30 AM and was cremated at 10:30 AM. This itself would clearly show that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands in the presence of clear witnesses, who already have given proper statements under Section 161(3) Cr.PC to the first respondent Police as to the factum of having removed the body of the deceased from the hanging position. I find material in the first information report registered by the 1^st respondent police as against the petitioners.

¶32

4/6

¶33

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

¶34

A perusal of the final report and the materials placed on record certainly prima facie reveal the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. The statement of the witnesses, if accepted as they stand, would clearly disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Hence, the interference at this stage would amount to conducting a mini trial which is impermissible in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS. when the prosecution registered the First Information Report, the person should be permitted to continue the investigation.

¶35

This court is not inclined to quash FIR at the very initiation of the investigation. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

However, the first respondent police is directed to conclude the investigation in Crime No.311 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

10.02.2026

¶38

NCC Index : Yes / No dss

¶39

5/6

¶40

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

¶41

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶42

dss