CRL OP/29550/2026 of M .Kuthpudheen Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.319 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and the 2nd petitioner are husband and wife, having married in 2012, and they have a 12- year-old daughter. The 2nd petitioner is working in Saudi Arabia, while the de facto complainant and their daughter are residing with her in-laws. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner, the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, sexually harassed her on several occasions and, on 05.03.2026, at about 12.00 midnight, trespassed into her room while she and her daughter were sleeping, sexually harassed her and threatened her with dire consequences. When she informed her husband about the incident, he allegedly advised her to adjust. Hence, she lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the 1st respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.30 of 2026 against the petitioners and two others for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 78, 131 and 351(3) of the

CRL OP No. 29550 of 2026

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in FIR in Crime No.30 of 2026 was registered for the offence under Section 296(b), 78, 131 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After investigation, respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.319 of 2026. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. On perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners and there are materials available to constitute the offence under Sections 296(b), 78, 131 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that

CRL OP No. 29550 of 2026

there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court

CRL OP No. 29550 of 2026

can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

8. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.319 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA

CRL OP No. 29550 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station - Sirkazhi, Mayladuthurai District. Cr.No.30 of 2026.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRL OP No. 29550 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.19700 of 2026 13-10-2026