Allowed¶28

Satham Hussain v. The II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tashildar

Madras HC4 Jun 2026CRL OP(MD)/7014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of summons under Section 129 BNSS; petition under Section 528 BNSS; habitual offender; Section 2(4), Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948; Executive Magistrate/Tashildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram; M.C.No.74/2026 dated 20.03.2026; petitioner involved in 4 pending criminal cases without conviction; summons without jurisdiction and quashed; relies on Crl.OP(MD)No.20725 of 2021 (M.Thangamalai, dated 11.01.2022); decided 04.06.2026; Crl.OP.(MD)No.7014 of 2026; R.Vijayakumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; the summons/proceedings in M.C.No.74/2026 dated 20.03.2026 issued under Section 129 of BNSS stand quashed; connected miscellaneous petition Crl.M.P(MD)No.7565 of 2026 closed. ¶28

Satham Hussain Vs The II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tashildar — 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.7014 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7565 of 2026

Satham Hussain

...Petitioner

The II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tashildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for records relating to the proceedings in M.C.No.74/2026 dated 20.03.2026 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.C.Aravindan

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

involved in 4 criminal cases and the same is pending and he has not been convicted in any one of the criminal cases.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶27

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.

¶28