CRL OP/29586/2026 of P.Kalaiselvan Vs State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.275 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Additional Mahila, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, Nandhini, married Kalaichelvan on 27.08.2025, and cash of Rs.2,70,000/-, seer articles worth Rs.5,00,000/- and 7 sovereigns of gold jewellery were allegedly given at the time of marriage. It is alleged that her husband was involved in an improper relationship with his elder brother’s wife, Jothi, and, when questioned, he abused and assaulted the de facto complainant and drove her out of the matrimonial home with the assistance of Manimaran and Jothi. Based on her complaint, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.12 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 85 and 351(2) of the BNS and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C. No.275 of 2026 before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 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.12 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 85 and 351(2) of the BNS. After investigation, respondent filed final report and the

CRL OP No. 29586 of 2026

same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.275 of 2026. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. On perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, who is arrayed as first accused, and there are materials available to constitute the offence under Sections 296(b), 85 and 351(2) of the BNS.

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 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

CRL OP No. 29586 of 2026

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 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

CRL OP No. 29586 of 2026

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.275 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Additional Mahila, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ariyalur District,

In Crime No.12 of 2026

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

CRL OP No. 29586 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29586 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19719 & 19718 of 2026 13-10-2026