Arun v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to CC.No.102 of 2026 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri, and quash the same.

¶2I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent.

¶3Upon going through the first information report, statements recorded during the course of investigation and the final report, the gravamen of the allegations are that the defacto complainant complained that on account of the enmity, the accused being the family members hit him by iron rod and also stone. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is arrayed as accused No.3. The specific allegation against him is that he picked up a stone and hit the injured witness on the back.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on a perusal of the Accident Register, it is evident that no external injuries were noted and that the alleged iron rod was not seized from the accused persons. It was further contended that only vague allegations have been made against the petitioner. A perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as the statement of the doctor, indicates that the injuries sustained by the victim are Page3 of 4 internal in nature. Therefore, it will depend upon the nature of the stone that is picked up by the petitioner for the purpose. In any event, these are matters for trial and cannot be taken up as incontrovertible facts so as to agree with the petitioner and quash the final report.

¶5Keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to raise all these grounds before the trial Court, the prayer made in the Criminal Original Petition cannot be countenanced and as such stands disposed of.

¶6At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads hardship for the petitioner who is only aged 23 years to attend the trial Court on all hearings as the same interferes with his employment. Considering the same, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, except for such hearings as may be insisted upon by the trial Court, shall stand dispensed with. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 03-07-2026 JER Page4 of 4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. JER To

¶1The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri.

¶2The Inspector of Police Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri. Crime no.61 of 2022

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. 03-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl.M.P.Nos.11251 & 11252 of 2026 Arun S/o Gowrappan, Therpettai, Karimangalam Post and Taluk, Dharmapuri. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri. Crime no.61 of 2022 2. Perumal S/o Gopal, 12/9, Aharam Road, Karimangalam Post and Taluk, Dharmapuri. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to CC.No.102 of 2026 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vignesh For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R1 Page2 of 4