C.Muralidharan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

C.Muralidharan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Charge sheet in P.R.C.No.2 of 2018 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai) quashed as against the petitioner alone; criminal original petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petitions Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2025 closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.2/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as 4th accused for offences under Sections 397, 395 and 365 r/w. 34 of IPC, should be quashed on the ground that the defacto complainant had actually alleged against one Murali of Coimbatore and the petitioner (a Madurai resident) was arrayed as an accused by mistake.

Court's answer

Given the police report confirming that the petitioner is not accused no.4 and the defacto complainant gave no complaint against him, and the second respondent's confirmation that the petitioner was wrongly implicated, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law.

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet in P.R.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai is quashed as against the petitioner alone, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charge sheet - Mistaken identity of accused. Petitioner C.Muralidharan, arrayed as 4th accused in P.R.C.No.2 of 2018 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai) arising out of Crime no.1520 of 2009 of C-4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District, and charged under Sections 397, 395 and 365 r/w. 34 of IPC, sought quashing on the ground that the defacto complainant had made allegations against one Murali, a native of Coimbatore, and that the petitioner, a Madurai resident, was arrayed as an accused by mistake. The police report recorded that the defacto complainant stated the petitioner is not accused no.4 and gave no complaint against him; the second respondent likewise submitted that the petitioner was wrongly implicated. Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the charge sheet as against the petitioner alone, allowed the criminal original petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. (R. Vijayakumar, J.; dated 10.07.2026)

Crl. O.P.(MD) No.2735 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10.07.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Crl.O.P(MD).No.2735 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2025

C.Muralidharan

... Petitioner

Vs

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by the Inspector of Police, C-4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District, Crime no.1520 of 2009.

S.Selvakumar

... Respondents

PRAYER: To call for the records pertaining to the case in P.R.C.No.2/2018 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and Quash the same as illegal as far as the petitioner is concerned and pass such further or other orders.

For petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For R1 : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian

1/4

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

Crl. O.P.(MD) No.2735 of 2025

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the 4^th accused in P.R.C.No.2 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein, the petitioner has charged with the offence under Sections 397, 395 and 365 r/w. 34 of IPC.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the defacto complainant made allegations against one Murali, a native of Coimbatore. However, by mistake, the petitioner, who is a resident of Madurai has been arrayed as an accused. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the charge sheet.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent had produced a report filed by the 1^st respondent. Paragraph 9 of the said report is extracted as follows:-

“9. It is respectfully submitted that later we have called the defacto complainant for the enquiry and he had given a statement that the petitioner is not the accused no.4 in this case and he did not see the petitioner earlier and he did not give any complaint against the petitioner, the said Murali is residing in Coimbatore and not the petitioner.”

2/4

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

Crl. O.P.(MD) No.2735 of 2025

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner, who is a resident of Madurai, has been wrongly implicated in the case and that the complaint was lodged against one Murali, who is a resident of Coimbatore.

In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein would only be an abuse of process of law.

Considering the above said facts, the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.2 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai stands quashed as against the petitioner alone. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

10.07.2026

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rgm

3/4

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

Crl. O.P.(MD) No.2735 of 2025

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

rgm

To:

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai

The Inspector of Police, C-4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District, Crime no.1520 of 2009.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD).No.2735 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2025

10.07.2026

4/4

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