Allowed¶29

M.Neduncheliyan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC4 Jun 2026CRL OP(MD)/6889/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.129 BNSS summons quashed; invocation restricted to persons declared habitual offenders under S.2(4) Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act 1948; no conviction in pending cases means not a habitual offender; M.Neduncheliyan; II Class Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar Tiruvadanai; Thondi Police Station; M.C.No.57/2026; Crl.OP.(MD)No.6889 of 2026; relied on Crl.OP(MD)No.20725 of 2021 (M.Thangamalai); Madurai Bench; R.Vijayakumar J.; petition allowed 04.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; summons issued under Section 129 of BNSS in M.C.No.57/2026 quashed and connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P(MD)No.7436 of 2026) closed. ¶29

M.Neduncheliyan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 04.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

Crl.OP.(MD)No.6889 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7436 of 2026

M.Neduncheliyan

...Petitioner

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tahsildar, Tiruvadanai,

¶10

Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. LIR No.09/2026.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records pertains to M.C.No.57/2026 dated 17.03.2026 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Iniyavan

¶15

For Respondents : M/s.P.Samuel Gunasingh Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side)

¶16

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the summons issued under Section 129 of BNSS.

¶21

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, he is

¶22

involved in 6 criminal cases and the same is pending and he has not been convicted in any one of the criminal cases.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.20725 of 2021, dated 11.01.2022, M.Thangamalai and 2 others, Vs. Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer and another , wherein this Court was pleased to hold that only when the person is declared as the habitual offender as contemplated under Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948, Section 129 can be invoked.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioner, so far he has not been convicted in any one of the criminal cases and therefore, the petitioner would not fall within the definition of habitual offender as contemplated under Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948 and in such circumstances, the summons have been issued under Section 129 of BNSS without any jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶29