R.Raja v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 649 of 2025 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶2A perusal of the First Information Report (FIR), the materials collected during the course of the investigation, and the final report reveals that the gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that when the defacto complainant arrived at the Sub-Registrar's Office, the petitioner, enraged by the fact that the registration was affected, picked up a mopstick and indiscriminately assaulted the defacto complainant, including on the head, until the stick broke.

¶3The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the medical officer has certified the injuries as only simple in nature. It is submitted that a mopstick cannot be termed a "deadly weapon," and if the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) / corresponding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provision goes away, the remaining offences become bailable and non-cognizable, thereby rendering the very registration of the case questionable. The learned counsel further submits that the allegation regarding criminal intimidation is based solely on the ipse dixit of the defacto complainant. He points out that no independent witness statement was recorded Page3 of 6 by the investigating agency, despite the occurrence allegedly taking place right at the entrance of the Sub-Registrar's Office. For all the reasons stated above, the learned counsel submits that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of Court, engineered at the instance of a media person, and therefore, this Court ought to interfere.

¶4I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶5The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner primarily depend on the factual scenario of the case. As rightly contended, a mopstick can be a light stick made of compressed or light wood, which may not qualify as a dangerous weapon; whereas, if it is made of hardwood, it can certainly be termed a dangerous weapon. Such determination cannot be made at the stage of quashing the proceedings. Even with reference to the other arguments, the questions raised are mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, they require a wholesome consideration of evidence after due cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

¶6As of now, there are sufficient materials on record for the trial Court to proceed further with the case. Consequently, this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere at the stage of the final report by quashing the same. However, Page4 of 6 liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all these grounds before the trial Court during the course of the trial.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, taking into consideration the hardships pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court stands dispensed with, except for those hearings where his presence is strictly insisted upon or deemed necessary by the trial Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition, if any, is closed. 10-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GBI Page5 of 6 To

¶1The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶2The State Represented by the Inspector of Police J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai - 600 015. Crime no.246 of 2023.

¶3Balaji S/o.Gopalakrishnan, No.66, Western Apartment, Yamunai Nagar, 2nd Street, Urapakkam, Chennai – 603210.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17899oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o17899oofo2026 10-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl MP Nos.11958 & 11959 of 2026 R.Raja S/o.Ramen, No.4/9, Nu Tech Apartment, Raman Street, Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai - 600 015. Crime no.246 of 2023. 2. Balaji S/o.Gopalakrishnan, No.66, Western Apartment, Yamunai Nagar, 2nd Street, Urapakkam, Chennai - 603210. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, seeking to Quash the C.C.No.649 of 2025 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai pending and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner(s): Mr.L Infant Dinesh For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for R1 Page2 of 6