Disposed¶25

G.Muthaiah v. P.Ramesh

Madras HC13 Feb 2026CRL OP(MD)/8716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

G.Muthiah v. P.Ramesh; Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024 (& Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5978 of 2024); Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice L.Victoria Gowri; decided 13.02.2026. Quash petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against proceedings/final report in S.T.C.No. 442/2023 (Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai) refused at post-prosecution-evidence stage: Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction cannot be used for a roving enquiry or mini trial once substantive evidence and marked documents exist, relying on Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others, (2015) 1 SCC 103. Petition disposed of; trial to be completed within six months.

What did the court decide?

No quashal granted to petitioner; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; trial Court directed to complete trial in S.T.C.No. 442 of 2023 within six months.

G.Muthaiah Vs P.Ramesh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashal granted to petitioner; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; trial Court directed to complete trial in S.T.C.No. 442 of 2023 within six months.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings/final report in S.T.C.No. 442/2023 (Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai) against petitioner G.Muthiah could be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 at a stage when prosecution evidence had already been completed.

¶19

Court's answer

Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS at a stage where substantive prosecution evidence was on record and documents marked, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or mini trial (as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others); accordingly it declined to quash the proceedings.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of without quashing, with the trial Court directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible in S.T.C.No. 442 of 2023 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024) filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by G.Muthiah seeking quashal of the records/final report in S.T.C.No. 442/2023 before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai, was disposed of without quashing by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Justice L.Victoria Gowri) on 13.02.2026. Since prosecution witnesses stood concluded, substantive evidence was on record and documents had been marked, the Court held that, exercising Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction, it could not conduct a roving enquiry or mini trial, relying on the Supreme Court's position in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others, (2015) 1 SCC 103. The trial Court was directed to complete the trial within six months from receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petitions (including Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5978 of 2024) were closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5978 of 2024

G.Muthiah

... Petitioner

Vs.

P.Ramesh ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in S.T.C.No. 442 /2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai, and quash the same against the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajendran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining

¶15

to the case in S.T.C.No. 442 /2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024

¶19

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no case made out from the materials collected by the prosecution as against the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to quash the final report.

¶20

However, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the prosecution witnesses have already been concluded and the case is posted for defence side evidence.

¶21

It is seen that the prosecution side evidence is already done. As the substantive evidence had already come on record and documents have also been marked through the witnesses, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, cannot conduct a roving enquiry or mini trial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103 . Since the prosecution witnesses have already been concluded and the case is posted for defence side evidence, it is for the trial Court to take note of it and proceed as per law. Hence this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible in S.T.C.No. 442 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Madurai, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8716 of 2024

¶25

5. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶26

of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶27

13.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No (1/2) Index : Yes / No Sm TO :-