Dismissed

Senthur Pandiyan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police, Perunazhi

Madras HC16 Mar 2026CRL OP(MD)/5396/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Section 528 of BNSS alleging offences under BNS. The Court held prima facie grounds were made out and no legal grounds for quashing were raised, dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

Senthur Pandiyan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector… — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5396 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

Crl.OP.(MD)No.5396 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5802 of 2026

¶7

1.Senthur Pandiyan

¶8

2.A.Marimuthupandian

¶9

3.Nehru Irulandi

¶10

4.D.Thangaraj Pandian ...Petitioners/A1 to A4

¶11

¶12

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Sub Inspector of Police, Perunazhi Police Station, Perunazhi,

¶13

Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.6 of 2026)

¶14

2.Nandhini ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act,

¶16

to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in FIR in Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram (For R1) Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Navannetharaja (for R2)

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5396 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present petition has been filed by A1 to A4 in Crime No.6 of 2026

¶23

on the file of the first respondent Police seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, wherein the petitioners have committed the offence under Sections 49, 189(2), 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

¶24

2.A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioners along with others are alleged to have entered into the property of the defacto complainant using JCB and said to have damaged the motor, CCTV cameras and 110 plants.

¶25

3.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

¶26

4.A perusal of the FIR reveals that the prima facie has been made out as against the petitioners and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage especially when no legal grounds have been raised for quashing the FIR.

¶27

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though

¶28

he has lodged a counter complaint as against the second respondent on the same day, they have not registered FIR.

¶29

2/4

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5396 of 2026

¶32

6.It is for the petitioner to initiate independent action for non registration of the FIR.

¶33

7.With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶34

16.03.2026

¶35

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsg To

¶36

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Perunazhi Police Station, Perunazhi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5396 of 2026

¶41

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶42

vsg

¶43

Crl.OP.(MD)No.5396 of 2026

¶44

16.03.2026

¶45

4/4

¶46

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

Senthur Pandiyan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police, Perunazhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthur Pandiyan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police, Perunazhi

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

Shajahan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Atchanpudur

Saroja Vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kawaskar @ Gavaskar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Cscid

Krishnaveni Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Raja Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Thangavel, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli Junction