VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Rammohan v. The State Rep.By Its, the Inspector of Police,

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
13 February 2026
Bench
A.D.Jagadish Chandiraauthor
Case no.
CRL OP 3612/2026

Judgment

ORDER The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.616 of 2016, pending against the petitioner on the file of the first respondent police. Page2 of 5

¶2Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, alleging that due to previous enmity, the petitioners abused the brother of the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a stick, the aforesaid case in Crime No.616 of 2016 was registered on 20.09.2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC, which is now sought to be quashed.

¶3The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are as follows:-

3.1. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on

18.09.2016 and the case was registered on 20.09.2016. The maximum punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences is tabulated hereunder: Sections Punishment 341 IPC Imprisonment may extend to three months or with fine or with both 294(b) IPC Imprisonment may extend to three months or with fine or with both 323 IPC Imprisonment may extend to one year or with fine or with both 324 IPC Imprisonment may extend to three years or with fine or with both 506(i) IPC Imprisonment may extend to two years or with fine or with both Page3 of 5

3.2. In respect of the aforesaid offences, the investigation ought to have been completed and the final report filed within three years from the date of registration of the FIR, as mandated under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is a clear bar for taking cognizance if it is filed beyond three years from the date of registration of FIR.

3.3. Since the final report has not been filed within three years, the learned Magistrate is barred from taking cognizance. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash the FIR pending against the petitioner.

¶4Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent Police, on instructions, submitted that the investigation in this case has been completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He fairly admitted that there is a delay.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6For the punishment set out in paragraph 3.1, supra, the final report ought to have been filed within three years from the date of registration of the FIR, as per Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, the Page4 of 5 final report has not been filed within the period of three years since the registration of the FIR and therefore, cognizance cannot be taken.

¶7In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending against the petitioner and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.616 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VKR To

1.The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o3612oofo2026 A.D.JAGADISHoCHANDIRA,oJ. VKR CRLoOPoNo.o3612oofo2026 13-02-2026 Page5oofo5

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.2500 of 2026 1. Rammohan 2. Suresh 3. Moorthy ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District. Cr.No.616 of 2016. 2. Arumugam ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for records pertaining to Crime No.616/2016 dated 20.09.2016 pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.