Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1110
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Jeyakumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No.996 of 2023 – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1294 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1340 of 2026
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side).
Section 224 IPC creates two distinct offences: resistance to lawful apprehension and escape from lawful custody. The second limb provides for independent criminal liability for escaping from lawful detention, and proof of resistance or obstruction is not an essential element to sustain a charge under this limb.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 224 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 262 - Escape from lawful custody - Interpretation of statutory provisions - Whether offence requires resistance or obstruction - The provision contains two distinct limbs; the second limb independently criminalizes escape from lawful custody - Heading of a section cannot override clear and unambiguous statutory text - Conduct of a prisoner need not involve resistance if they escape from lawful detention. (Paras 18, 20, 21, 26, 27)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashment of proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction - Principles for exercise - Courts are restricted from conducting mini-trials or weighing evidence - Allegations in the final report must be taken at face value to determine if a prima facie offence is disclosed - Lawful custody is a legal status that continues beyond physical confinement - Subsequent apprehension does not negate a completed offence. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 39)
Facts of the case:
The accused, a life convict, was assigned maintenance duty outside the prison premises. During this authorized activity, the individual escaped from detention and was subsequently apprehended. The accused filed a petition to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that because there was no allegation of physical resistance or obstruction to apprehension, the essential ingredients of the criminal offence were not satisfied.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the statutory provision comprises two independent limbs: the first pertains to intentionally offering resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, while the second pertains to escaping from lawful custody. The two are distinct, and the presence of resistance is not a prerequisite for the latter.
Issues: The main issues were whether the specified criminal provision requires physical resistance or obstruction to trigger liability, and whether the legal concept of custody remains intact when a prisoner is removed from the immediate prison enclosure for authorized work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second limb of the provision independently penalizes escape from lawful custody. Lawful custody is a legal status independent of physical location; therefore, a prisoner escaping while under the authority of the prison administration commits an offence regardless of whether any overt act of resistance occurred.
Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conflict regarding the scope of section 224 ipc and its two distinct limbs. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. factual basis of the alleged escape from prison custody. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. statutory interpretation of section 224 ipc and legal definition of custody. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. limits of inherent jurisdiction in quashing criminal proceedings for escape. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 5. escape from lawful custody is an independent punishable offence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
ORDER :
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
The present Criminal Original Petition brings before this Court a narrow but significant question touching upon the true import of Section 224 IPC. The petitioner, a life convict, seeks quashment of the final report filed against him on the ground that mere escape from custody, without any allegation of resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, would not attract Section 224 IPC.
2. The petitioner attempts to derive support from the marginal heading of the provision, whereas the prosecution places reliance upon the substantive text of Section 224 IPC and contends that the provision consists of two distinct limbs, the second of which independently criminalises escape or attempt to escape from lawful custody.
Case of the Prosecution:
3. The petitioner is a life convict and was lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai, from 24.11.2016. According to the prosecution, owing to his good conduct inside the prison, the petitioner was deputed by the prison authorities to perform work outside the prison premises. On 29.11.2023, at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner, along with two other convict prisoners, was engaged in maintenance work in the residential quarters of the jail officers. At that time, on the pretext of going to the bathroom, the petitioner allegedly escaped from the lawful custody of the prison authorities. It is further alleged that the petitioner was subsequently apprehended on 22.12.2023.
4. Based on the said occurrence, the respondent police registered the case and, after completion of investigation, filed the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.2158 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, for the offence under Section 224 IPC, corresponding to Section 262 BNS. The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused.
Grounds Raised for Quashment:
5. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned final report mainly on the following grounds:
5.1. Firstly, it is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 224 IPC are not attracted, since there is no allegation that the petitioner offered resistance or caused illegal obstruction to his lawful apprehension.
5.2. Secondly, it is submitted that even according to the prosecution, the allegation is only that the petitioner escaped while he was engaged in work outside the prison premises. According to the petitioner, mere escape, without resistance or obstruction, would not constitute an offence under Section 224 IPC.
5.3. Thirdly, it is contended that the factual allegations disclose, at the highest, negligence on the part of the prison officials who were entrusted with the custody of the petitioner.
5.4. Fourthly, it is alleged that the prosecution has been launched only to shield the prison officials from departmental or other consequences arising out of their negligence.
5.5. Fifthly, it is submitted that the prosecution has wrongly invoked Section 224 IPC, though the factual matrix does not satisfy the statutory requirements of the said provision.
5.6. Lastly, it is contended that even if the allegations in the final report are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged, and therefore the case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
Submissions on either side:
