Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/24896/2026 of Murugan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Kariapatti on 2 November 2026
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011502192026}
AND
CRL MP(MD) NO. 23214 OF 2026,CRL MP(MD) NO. 23215 OF
1. Murugan
2. Ramesh
3. Muthumuniyandi
4. Muthiah
5. Mahalingam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No. 4 of 2018)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crl.MP No. 279/2025, pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District quash the charge sheet.
For Petitioner(s)
:Mr.Palaniselvam M
For Respondent(s)
:Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja,
Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
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
The present petition has been filed by A1 to A5 in Crl.M.P. No.279 of 2025 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapati, seeking to quash the said miscellaneous petition and to quash the charge sheet.
2. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners are charged with the offence under sections 143, 188 and 285 of IPC.
3. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that at about 11.40 AM on 06.01.2018, the petitioners are said to have made an attempt to burn the Effigy of a political personality. Except these allegations, no other allegations have been made as against the petitioners herein.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, burning of Effigy cannot be considered to be an offence and the petitioners cannot be charged under section 188 of I.P.C. when a complaint has not been lodged by a public servant.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
6. The Division Bench of our High Court in WP No.10560 of 2015, dated 19.06.2015 between Mr. A. Santosh Yadav and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in paragraph No. 9, it is held as follows: “9. A careful reading of Section 285 would show that the mere burning of an effigy, by itself, was not made a punishable offence under the IPC. In fact, there is not even a reference in Section 285, IPC to the burning of effigies. Section 285 is actually inserted in Chapter XIV of the IPC, which deals with offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. Section 285 itself is grouped along with offences dealing with negligence. The manner in which Section 285 is worded would show that doing anything with fire or any combustible matter any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, is made punishable. Therefore, acting rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or in a manner likely to cause hurt or injury, is a sine qua non for making an act come within the meaning of Section 285.”
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
7. Our High Court in a decision made in Crl.OP(MD) No.6072 of 2019, dated 26.04.2019 between Mr. Vanarajan Vs State in paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2, it is held as follows: “6.1 Any complaint under Section 188 I.P.C., cannot be taken cognizance and it is not cognizable offence. This Court on perusing the papers satisfied that Section 143 IPC is inserted only to get over the initial lapse in not preferring the complaint for the alleged commission of offence under Section 188 IPC. 6.2 This Court vide its judgment in Jeevanandham and Others Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another [2018-2-L.W.(Crl.)606] has already held that the court can take cognizance under Section 188 IPC only on the basis of a complaint preferred before the Magistrate by the concerned public servant. This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of the said judgment. Turning to allegation of burning an effigy, though it might involve defalcation, yet it cannot be said that it will endanger human life.”
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026
8. The above cited decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In such view of the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings would only be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the Crl.M.P.No. 279 of 2015 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapatti and the charge sheet therein stands quashed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PNM To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapatti
2. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Kariapatti Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR J. PNM CRL OP(MD) No. 24896 of 2026 AND CRL MP(MD) NO. 23214 OF 2026,CRL MP(MD) NO. 23215 OF
02-11-2026