CRL OP/29753/2026 of Ilango Vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.579 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.11.2024, the petitioner allegedly instructed one Murali, the husband of the de facto complainant, to repair an electrical fault at his farm without switching off the power supply. While carrying out the repair work, said Murali came into contact with a high- tension electrical line and sustained grievous injuries due to electrocution. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.28 of 2025 for the offence under Section 125(b) of the BNS, and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in STC. No.579 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is also facing a compensation case filed by the injured person arising out of the same incident. According to the petitioner, the occurrence was purely an accident and he had never directed the injured to climb the electric pole. It is further contended that the petitioner had not engaged the injured for any electrical work. On the other hand, he had engaged an electrician, who, in turn, engaged the injured for carrying out the work. Therefore, there is no direct overt act attributed to the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. On perusal of records, including the statement recorded from the injured as well as his wife, it is revealed that the petitioner had invited the injured to carry out electrical work in his company premises. While the work was being undertaken, the petitioner allegedly instructed the injured to repair the electrical line by climbing an electric pole. It is further revealed that, after disconnecting the service connection, the injured climbed the electirc pole for the purpose of carrying out the repair work. However, he accidentally came into contact with a HT wire and suffered electrocution, resulting in grievous injuries all over his body. Fortunately, he survived the incident. Further, a perusal of the statements recorded during the investigation does not disclose any allegation that the petitioner had engaged an electrician and that such electrician had subsquently engaged the injured for carrying out the elctrical work. There is absolutely no material available on record to substantiate the said contention of the petitioner.

5. Therefore, there is specific allegation as against the petitioner and there are materials available to constitute the offence under Section 125(b) of the BNS.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in STC.No.579 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police Kiliyanoor Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No.28 of 2025.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29753 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19803 & 19805 of 2026 14-10-2026