Madras High Court
CRL OP/29578/2026 of Senthil Kumar Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspctor of Police on 13 October 2026
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012257142026}
1. Senthil Kumar
S/o Rajendiran,
Karikkal Natham Village,
Billana Kuppam Post,
Krishnagiri District.
2. Rathinavel
S/o Vijaya Kumar,
Karikkal Natham Village,
Billana Kuppam Post,
Krishnagiri Dsitrict.
3. Vijay
S/o Muniyppan,
3/167, Singara Pettai Village,
Koppakkarai Post,
Denkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4. Suresh
S/o Chinna Kodiyappan,
Enam Kutta Palli Village,
Krishnagiri District.
5. Durai @ Annadurai
S/o Subramnaiyan,
D.No.4/12, Ragimanapalli,
Gurbarapalli,
Krishnagiri District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep. by, The Inspctor of Police Civil Supplies CID Department, Krishnagiri Unit, Krishnagiri District.
Crime No.58 of 2021.
..Respondent(s)
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records pertaining to
CC.No.872 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri and quash the same and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner(s):
N.Vijayaraj
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This criminal original petition is filed to quash the proceeding under Section 6 (4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7 (i) a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they illegally transported PDS rice bags on 08.06.2021 to Karnataka in two vehicles.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the accused in CC.No.872 of 2022, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri. He would further submit that despite the case having been registered in the year 2022, the respondent has not produced the witnesses so far. Therefore, they are infringing the petitioners’ right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to have a fair and speedy trial.
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
4. The learned counsel would further submit that in Suo Motu WP. (Crl).No.618 of 2025, this Court has taken cognizance of long pending cases and held that such cases are liable to be quashed to reduce docket explosion. He would contend that the petitioners were charged for offences under Section 6 (4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7 (i) a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, however, there is no material to show that the rice was purchased from any card holder, at best, it was allegedly procured from bulk sellers.
5. The learned counsel would further contend that the essential ingredients for the offence are absent. It is his case that there is no credible evidence to support the case of the prosecution and further, the proceeding is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, since 2022. He also submitted that this Court quashed the proceedings in a similar case via Crl.O.P.No.25136 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025. Therefore, he would submit that the proceeding is an abuse of process of law and he would pray to quash the proceeding.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
respondent would submit that though the case has been registered in the year 2022, since the witnesses could not be located, there is an inordinate delay. However, he would submit that the charge sheet is filed for offences under Section 6 (4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7 (i) a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
8. Though the petitioner is charged for offences under Section 6
(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7 (i) a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, there is no material to show that the rice was purchased from any card holder or that it was allegedly procured from bulk sellers. Further, the case has been pending from the year 2022, and the respondent has not taken any steps to produce witnesses so far.
9. When there is no material to substantiate the case of the prosecution and there had been an inordinate delay on their side to produce witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the proceeding against the
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
10. Accordingly, the proceeding in CC.No.872 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, is quashed. This criminal original petition is allowed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To
1. The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID Department, Krishnagiri Unit, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.58 of 2021.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29578 of 2026 13-10-2026