K.Uma v. The State Represented by

ORDER The Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.423 of 2023 on the file of 2nd respondent Police.

¶2I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the First Information Report. The 3rd respondent had given the complaint that she is married to one Murugesan. While so, on 20.02.2023, when they went to see their Advocate near the Coimbatore Court Complex, the petitioner confronted them and abused them, more specifically, abused the de facto complainant by mentioning her caste name and threatened to do away with her. The accused also pulled the de facto complainant, by her hair and there was also nail scratch injuries on her chest and face. Therefore, the de facto complainant got admitted in CMC hospital. On the strength of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.423 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of IPC. Page3 of 6

¶3It is now stated that pending the Criminal Original Petition, the respondent Police concluded the investigation and the report is filed stating that there was no such incident of calling the caste name of the de facto complainant but however, on account of their enmity, both of them were pulling and pushing each other by catching hold of each other in the public and therefore, a charge is laid against them for the offences under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, it is also placed on record that the 3rd respondent is also facing other cases in Crime Nos. 37 of 2022, 770 of 2022, 233 of 2023, 422 of 2023, and 104 of 2024.

¶4I have considered the facts and circumstances of the above case. A perusal of the final report now said to be filed pursuant to the impugned First Information Report, it is seen that the primary allegation that the petitioner herein called the caste name of the 3rd respondent is proved to be false. Now the charge sheet is filed for the offence under Section 160 of IPC, for committing affray. Even though it is said that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent fought in the public place, there is no material on record to show that the public peace was affected. In view thereof, the said offence is also not made out.

¶5Even though the notice is served and the 3rd respondent entered appearance, they have not chosen to appear before this Court and contest the case. No counter affidavit is also filed by the 3rd respondent Page4 of 6

¶6For all the above reasons, the Crl.O.P.No.25572 of 2025 is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.423 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police and the final report taken on file as STC No. 4391 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21-07-2026 KKN Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o25572oofo2025 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. KKN CRLoOPoNo.o25572oofo2025 21-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl.M.P.No. 17343 of 2025 K.Uma, D/o. Kandhasamy, No.R-12, A-201, K.G. Garden, City Apartment, Vedapatti, Coimbatore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Represented by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District. 3. V. Sindhu D/o. Vinoth, D.No.4-B-Saroj Villa Apartment, Balan Nagar, Goundanpalayam, Coimbatore District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records culminating in Crime No.423 of 2023 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent Police, QUASH the same and pass such further order or other orders as this Honarable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Parthasarathy and Associates for Mr.B.Sridhar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2 R3 – No Appearance