Tamilvanan v. State by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in C.C.No.326 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 506(i) IPC, has filed the Page1 of 6 present Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the Charge Sheet against the petitioner.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against the second respondent, pursuant to which a case was registered in Crime No.760 of 2020. According to the petitioner, the present complaint has been lodged by the second respondent as a counterblast to the earlier complaint and that too after an inordinate delay of 55 days.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Accident Register copy reveals that the de facto complainant had informed the Casualty Doctor that she was assaulted by two male persons and one female person near a field. However, the charge sheet has been filed only against the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and the

de facto complainant are adjacent landowners and there was some dispute with regard to the usage and enjoyment of a common pathway. Hence, a false complaint has been lodged.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner, which was registered in Crime No.760 of Page2 of 6 2020, was closed as a mistake of fact on 22.08.2021. The petitioner did not challenge the closure report before the competent Forum. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the present case is a counterblast to the earlier complaint is not sustainable.

¶6The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that, though the respondent lodged the complaint with a delay, the same has been properly explained. He further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are all factual aspect and the same cannot be decided in the quash petition.

¶7Considering the submissions and perusal of materials, it is seen that the FIR was registered on 09.08.2020 and the final report was prepared on

22.10.2020. However, the case was taken on file in the year 2025, and the delay cannot be attributed to the respondent Police. It is also not in dispute that the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.760 of 2020 was closed as a mistake of fact and that the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the said closure report. Further, the contentions raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and it is for the petitioner to raise all these points before the Trial Court.

¶8In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Page3 of 6

¶9It is made clear that the observations made in the petition are only for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition. The Trial Court shall dispose of the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this case. 04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS Page4 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vanthavasi

2.The Inspector of Police, Ponnur Police Street, Thiruvannamalai District. Crime No.754 of 2020

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o14099oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. PVS CRLoOPoNo.o14099oofo2026 04-06-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and CRL.MP.No.9010 of 2026 Tamilvanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State by The Inspector of Police, Ponnur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. Crime No.754 of 2020. 2.Alamelu ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in C.C.No.326 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Vanthavasi, and quash the Charge sheet pending against the petitioner and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): S.Silambu Selvan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1