CRL OP/7401/2026 of B.N.Ravi Vs State of Tamilnadu, Represented on 13 November 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.No 207 of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram.

2. The petitioners in Crl.OP.No.7401 and 10202 of 2026 are arrayed as A1 and A2, A3 and A4 respectively. On the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent registered the FIR in Cr.No.546 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294B, 506(i), 506(2), 323, 447, 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) alleging that the third respondent/defacto complainant was elected as the President of the Tiruputkuzhi Village Panchayat for a second consecutive term. She belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) community and is affiliated with a political party opposite to that of the accused, who belong to other communities.

The wife of the second accused and the daughter-in-law of the first accused had contested against the de facto complainant for the post of Panchayat President and lost.

3. It is alleged that unable to accept her electoral victory, the accused frequently humiliated the de facto complainant in public places by hurling casteist slurs and threatening her with dire consequences. They arrogantly claimed that despite her election as the Panchayat President, they held power equivalent to a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and that she could not act against their wishes.

4. It is further alleged that on 29.11.2021, at around 02:00 p.m. near the Draupathi Amman Temple on Arumuga Nadar Street, the de facto complainant and her husband brought a JCB machine to clear stagnant rainwater. At that juncture, the accused gathered and abused them using their caste name in public view. When the de facto complainant's husband questioned their behavior, he was physically assaulted by the accused. Following this incident, they immediately lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District. During the subsequent inquiry conducted by the second respondent, the accused tendered an apology to the de facto complainant and gave an assurance that they would not indulge in any further illegal activities against her.

5. However, seeking vengeance for the complaint lodged against them, the accused began demanding that the de facto complainant employ only those individuals recommended by them for panchayat work. Furthermore, the accused refused to pay their water and property taxes. On 15.04.2022, the accused trespassed into the Panchayat Office in an inebriated state, picked a quarrel over the tax demands, and abused the complainant and others using filthy language and casteist slurs.

6. It is further alleged that earlier, on 26.01.2022, the accused had also attempted to prevent the de facto complainant from hoisting the National Flag on the occasion of Republic Day. Defying their opposition and with the assistance of the general public, the Panchayat President successfully hoisted the National Flag. However, while she was distributing notebooks to the school students attending the celebration, the accused again insulted her with filthy language and abused her caste identity. Although all these incidents were duly reported to the District Collector, no action was initiated against the accused. Consequently, the de facto complainant approached the Commission for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Following this, the second respondent registered a First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 546 of 2022.

7. It is further alleged that on completion of the investigation, a final report was filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram. The court took cognizance of the matter in S.C. No. 207 of 2024, which is currently pending. The petitioners have now filed the present petitions seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submits that the accused persons are respected individuals in their village and that a false complaint has been foisted against them solely to evade the execution of a Civil Court decree. He further submits that approximately one year prior to the lodging of the complaint, the husband of the de facto complainant borrowed a loan and subsequently defaulted on its repayment. This default culminated in a suit for recovery of money in O.S. No. 148 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, which was ultimately decreed in favour of the first accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the de facto complainant’s husband preferred an appeal suit in A.S. No. 3 of 2024 on the file of the District Court, Kancheepuram. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

9. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the defacto complainant completely suppressed the existence of the aforementioned money decree in her complaint. Furthermore, no such alleged occurrence took place in a public place or within public view, which is a mandatory prerequisite to attract offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

10. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4 relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2026 8SCC138 in the case of case of Gunjan Alias Girija Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted here under: “ Leave Granted. The challenge in this appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter “ the High Court”), dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No.114 of 2023 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3181 of 2023, filed by the appellant-accused herein.

2. In the criminal revision petition, what was called in question, was the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-02.. The Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter “ the trial court”) dated 26.11.2022 on framing of charges as well as order dated 30.11.2022, whereby the charges were framed. Against Appellant-1-Accused 1 Smt.Gunjan alias Girija Kumar, W/o.Shri Laxman Dass, Sections 3(1)

(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after SC/ST Act) , whereas against all the appellant-accused including Appellant-1, charge was also framed under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (herein after IPC). The prayer of the appellants to quash the said orders was rejected and the criminal revision petition came to be dismissed by the High Court.

3. The complainant and the accused persons happen to be family members. Appellants 2 and 3 and respondent2 complainant are real brothers. Appellants 1 and 4 are legally wedded wives of Appellants 2 and 3 respectively. The wives hail from castes other than Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Their husbands that is Appellants 2 and 3 as well as respondent 2 complainant belong to Scheduled Castes. By virtue of marriage, the wives, it was contended, also stood to belong to caste and community of their husbands as well as that of respondent 2 complainant. The facts on record and the pleadings suggest that a dispute existed between the parties in respect of the properties of their late father named Nand Kishore, situated at Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar”. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and second respondents as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to quash this petition.

12. A perusal of the records reveals that there are specific averments and allegations made against each and every accused, which prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 506(ii), 323, 447, and 109 of IPC alongside Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel do not come to the aid of the petitioners in the case on hand.

13. Admittedly, the defacto complainant was elected as the President of the Panchayat for two consecutive terms. Furthermore, the wife of the second accused had also contested the said election and lost to the de facto complainant. The presidency of the said Panchayat is reserved for women. The third respondent/de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, and the accused, who belong to other communities, actively obstructed her from discharging her official duties in the Panchayat.

14. In fact, the District Collector had conducted an enquiry regarding this matter; however, no action was initiated against the accused at that stage. Furthermore, the de facto complainant was unlawfully prevented from hoisting the National Flag on Republic Day. It was only with the subsequent support and assistance of the general public that she managed to hoist the flag on 26.01.2022. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

15. A perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the witnesses reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are sufficient to prima facie attract the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 506(ii), 323, 447, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alongside Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

16. 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.

17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 ground raised by the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

21. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

13.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Vv To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District prohibition Enforcement Unit, (Addl in Charge Social Justice and Human Rights, Kancheepuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police Baluchetty Chatram Police Station Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. Vv Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.7401 and 10202 of 2026 13.11.2026