Rajendran @ Sorathur Rajendran v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos. 2469 & 2502 of 2026 Crl.O.P.No.3570 of 2026 Rajendran @ Sorathur Rajendran Former Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ... Petitioner Crl.O.P.No.3614 of 2026

1.Sivasubramaniyan Former Member of Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly

2.Rajasekar

... Petitioners -Vs-

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.627 of 2022)

2.Shahul Hameed A Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents (In both Crl.OPs) Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, to call for the records of the case in Crime No.627 of 2022, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore and quash the same. In both Crl.OPs For Petitioners : Mr.M.Manimaran For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON O RDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.627 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2022, the petitioners, along with 97 other persons, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly without prior permission and raised slogans condemning the arrest of a former Chief Minister, thereby allegedly causing a public nuisance. Consequently, the respondent police registered the aforesaid case in Crime No. 627 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC).

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the cases in Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District reported in (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others (Crl.O.P No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), in which the proceedings were quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the summons issued on the petitioners.

¶4Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent police submitted that there are totally 12 named accused and 93 unnamed accused in the above case and he also endorsed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

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

¶6In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the above said decisions would apply on all fours to the present case and that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and the same is liable to be quashed. Further, though the present petition has been filed by the petitioners alone, this Court finds that the allegations against the remaining accused are identical and they are similarly placed. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against them will also be an abuse of process of law.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.627 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed in toto i.e., as against the petitioners as well as the other accused. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

12.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rpl To

1.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai

Crl.O.P.Nos.3570o&o3614oofo2026 A.D.JAGADISHoCHANDIRAo.oJ, rpl Crl.O.P.Nos.3570o&o3614oofo2026

12.02.2026 Pageo5oofo5