CRL OP(MD)/8736/2026 of Chinnapandi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 9 October 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by Accused No.6 in Crime No. 276 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the FIR wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C.

2. A perusal of the FIR reveals that when the respondent police were on a patrol duty, they found that nine accused persons have assembled near Dindigul Railway Station Goodshed, Siddhi Vinayagar Temple in a suspicious manner. They were in possession of knives, wooden logs and chilly powder. On seeking the police party, they made an attempt to run away and they were surrendered and arrested by the police at 5.15. a.m. On being enquired into, they confesed that they were planning to brake open the jewellery shops and houses to commit theft of jewellery tonight in the shops located at Dindiugl Railway Station area. They have also confessed that they were plannng to do away with any one who is attempting to prevent the same.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the past seven years, the final report has not been filed. A false case has been foisted as against the petitioner for statistical purpose taking note of the petitioner's previous pending cases. He further submitted that FIR has been lodged only with an intention to harass the petitioner and the basic ingredients of Sections 392 and 402 of IPC have not been attracted. The learned counsel had further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable and on such basis, no prudent just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proeeding against the accused.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police submitted that though final report was filed on 10.12.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, the same was returned to rectify certain defects. However, the same has not been represented. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had further submitted that the petitioner and others were found in suspicious conversation and they were in possession of knives, wooden logs and chilli power in order to commit robbery in the jewellery shops and houses. According to him, the petitioner and others are charged wtih the serious offences and therefore, he raied objection for quashing of the FIR.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either and perused the material records.

6. The petitioner herein is alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. The entire case of the prosecution of preparation for dacoity rests upon the confession of the accused persons themselves after being arrested. Divested of that confession, all that remains is that nine persons were found together near Goodshed Siddhi Vinayagar Temple in Dindigul Railway Station. The place of assembling has to be noted. It is a busy railway junction especially at 5.15. a.m near Vinayagar Temple in Goodshed area, the petitioner and others are said to have assembled and they were making preparation to commit decoity.The police personnel who were four in number are said to have apprehened nine accused persons without resistance, without injury to anyone, and without a single person escaping. The FIR is silent as to how this was achieved.

7. Admittedly, there is no independent witness to the seizure. The mahazer has been signed only by the member of the police party though the place is near the busy Dindigul Railway Station.

8. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, no specific overtact has been

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026 alleged. The allegations are generally as against all the nine accused persons. No overtact, no prior association with the other accused, and no role in the alleged planning distinct from that of the others is attributed to him.

9. In such circumstances, it is clear that the ingredients of Sections 399 and 402 of IPC are not made out and the case projected by the investigating agency is highly improbable. It squarely falls within Category V enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case (AIR 1992 SC 604) and therefore, permitting the investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. In view of the foregoing deliberations, the FIR in Crime No.276 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police stands quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.10.2026. Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026 To

1. The Inspector of Police Town North Police Station Dindigul Town Dindigul District Crime No.276 of 2019

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR

, J.

msa CRL OP(MD) No. 8736 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.9294 of 2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )

Crl.OP(MD).No.8736 of 2026

09.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:10:49 pm )