CRL OP/30210/2026 of S.Manogaran Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 31 of 2026, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2025, approximately 100 employees assembled at the office of their employer and demanded payment of their monthly salaries, which had allegedly remained unpaid for three months, and their pensions, which had allegedly remained unpaid for at least ten months. During the protest, some of the participants allegedly used unparliamentary words against the employer. Based on a complaint lodged by the employer on 10.07.2025, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.126 of 2025 on 11.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 132 and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNS”). Upon completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report, and the same was taken cognizance of as C.C.No.31 of 2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the said proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the other employees had assembled only to protest against the non-payment of their salaries for three months and pensions for at least ten months. It was contended that the protest was peaceful and that the materials collected during the investigation did not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was lodged after a delay of ten days from the date of occurrence, without any satisfactory explanation, and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation had been completed, the final report had been filed, and the trial had commenced. It was further submitted that sufficient materials were available on record to proceed against the petitioner for the offences alleged and that the petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

6. It is true that the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 30.06.2025, whereas the complaint was lodged on 10.07.2025 and the FIR was registered on 11.07.2025. Thus, there is a delay between the date of occurrence and the lodging of the complaint. However, delay in lodging a complaint, by itself, is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The effect of such delay must be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation, if any, offered by the prosecution. In the present case, the delay assumes relevance only in conjunction with the absence of specific materials disclosing the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

7. The materials further indicate that a large number of employees had assembled to demand payment of their alleged unpaid salaries and pensions, and that the complaint was directed against only a few of the participants. While the right to assemble and express grievances peacefully is constitutionally protected, such protection does not extend to acts that independently constitute criminal offences. Nevertheless, mere participation in a peaceful protest cannot be treated as criminal conduct in the absence of material establishing the commission of a specific offence by the individual concerned. In the present case, the prosecution materials, as placed before this Court, do not disclose specific acts attributable to the petitioner satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 296(b), 132 and 127 of the BNS. The continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of such foundational material would result in an unwarranted prosecution. The fact that the trial has commenced does not, by itself, preclude this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction where the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the materials placed before it do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 132 and 127 of the BNS as against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 31 of 2026 is unsustainable and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2026, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PAM To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram.

2. The Inspector of Police, Annamalainagar Police Station, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. PAM CRL.O.P.No.30210 of 2026 and CRL.M.P.No.20140 of 2026 15-10-2026