CRL OP/32056/2026 of B.Aandiappan Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police on 11 November 2026

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.375 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 131, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the wife of late Balakrishnan; the said Balakrishnan entered into an agreement with one Malliga, wife of Ramalingam, for the purchase of the property admeasuring 1.29 acres comprised in Survey Nos.111/4 and 111/5 situated at Northampoondi Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District; for purchasing the aforesaid land, he obtained loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from the first petitioner herein; as a security for the aforesaid loan, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the first petitioner for the extent of 79 cents and Balakrishnan obtained sale deed in his favour of 59 cents; again Balakrishnan obtained loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and as a security, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner for the remaining 59 cents; within one week from the date of execution of power of attorney, the first petitioner had executed the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner; the first petitioner had also obtained interest for the loan lent to the said Balakrishnan; in view of the increase of the price of the land, the first petitioner refused to sign and execute the sale deeds to the purchasers identified by the said Balakrishnan; therefore, he lodged a complaint to the respondent police; while so, Balakrishnan died in a road accident on 07.01.2026; thereafter, the de facto complainant approached the petitioners and requested them to return the land after receiving the loan amount; the petitioners refused to execute the sale deed and therefore, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 04.09.2026 before the District Crime Branch; while that being so, the petitioners, on 10.09.2026 around 5.30 p.m., intercepted the de facto complainant near KVM Hospital, abused and threatened her in filthy language, grabbed her hair and severely bet her. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.375 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 131, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002, as against the petitionerd. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in it’s judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. ....................

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; ..............

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; .............

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.375 of 2026 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd To

1. The Inspector of Police Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. nsd CRL OP No. 32056 of 2026 04-11-2026