2026 Supreme(Mad) 1510

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Krishnamurthy – Petitioner
Versus 
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police - Respondent 
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22939 of 2025, 770 & 771 of 2026, Crl.M.P.(MD)No.19881 of 2025, Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22939 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings must be exercised sparingly; omnibus allegations without specific overt acts against a peripheral accused who is a mere employee justify quashing in intra-family property disputes.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 342, 365, 427, 447, 506(i), 506(ii), 307 - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Section 3 - Criminal proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction to quash - Principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra followed - Power must be exercised sparingly and only when allegations do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, or manifestly attended with mala fides (Paras 47-48) - Quashing is an exception and not the rule (Para 48) - Annexures and disputed private documents produced by accused cannot be treated as evidence in quash proceedings (Para 50) - Delay in investigation is a relevant consideration though not determinative (Para 52) -

(B) Appeal - Scope of appellate review - Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the court below - An order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible (Para 105-107)

Facts of the case:
These petitions arise out of criminal proceedings involving intra-family disputes concerning control, possession, management, and enjoyment of immovable properties and industrial establishments. The petitions challenge FIRs, charge sheet, and related proceedings initiated in connection with alleged incidents of assault, restraint, abduction, confinement, and damage during inspections and property access disputes. The proceedings include one charge sheet for offences under Sections 147, 149, 294(b), 341, 323 IPC and Section 3 of the relevant damage act, and two FIRs registered after significant delays.

Findings of Court:
In one petition, the accusation against the petitioner (Accused No.2) is found to be omnibus without specific overt act; contemporaneous report of court-appointed functionaries records only a wordy quarrel without supporting assault or restraint; continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. In the remaining two petitions, the allegations, taken at face value, disclose cognizable offences and present case-counter-case structures involving disputed facts; quashing not warranted though direction issued for expeditious completion of investigation.

Issues: The main issues were whether allegations in FIRs and final report disclose cognizable offences, whether proceedings are vitiated by patent mala fides, absence of ingredients, or inherent improbability, whether materials relied upon by petitioners are of sterling character warranting quashment, and appropriate reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal law is not to be permitted to become a private weapon in family wars; where the accusation against a particular accused is nebulous and such accused is only an employee with no stake in the underlying civil contest, the Court must be astute to the possibility of over-implication; existence of a civil dispute does not by itself negate criminality, but where no specific overt act is attributed and evidence of sterling quality supports innocence, continuation amounts to abuse of process (Paras 66, 70, 104-107).

Result: One petition allowed and proceedings quashed against the petitioner alone; other two petitions dismissed with direction to complete investigation and file final report within eight weeks.