Disposed¶27

Sasikala v. The state rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2026CRL RC/160/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cognizance on police final report; omitted accused; de facto complainant's right to object to final report; opportunity to file objections/protest petition before Magistrate; summons to sole accused; Crl.R.C. under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS; C.C.No.915 of 2025; Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur; S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station; Madras High Court; decided 05.02.2026; revision disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed of with the observation that the learned Magistrate shall permit the petitioner to file her objections to the final report, and may thereafter pass appropriate orders; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶27

Sasikala Vs The state rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.160 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.160 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.1032 of 2026

Sasikala

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 089.

¶13

Babu ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order of cognizance dated 24.10.2025 in C.C.No.915 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur; remand the case back to the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur, directing the Court to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to file protest petition in accordance with law.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.160 of 2026

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The revision challenges the order taking cognizance of the offence and

¶21

issuance of summons to the 2 nd respondent alone.

¶22

2 . It is the case of the petitioner that she had lodged a complaint against the 2 nd respondent, his wife and two daughters; that the 1 st respondent, on investigation, filed the final report only as against the 2 nd respondent; that the learned Magistrate, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/de facto complainant, had accepted the final report and taken cognizance of the offence against the 2 nd respondent alone.

¶23

3 . It is well-settled that in the final report filed, if certain accused have been omitted, the complainant must be given an opportunity to make his/her submissions.

¶24

4 . In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate shall permit the petitioner to file her objections to the final report. It is needless to say that if the learned Magistrate, on considering the objections, is still of the view that the final report is justified, then the learned Magistrate may pass such orders.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.160 of 2026 5 . The revision is disposed of with the above observation. Connected

¶28

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

05.02.2026

¶30

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No nv