BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Crl.O.P(MD)No.4858 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.3503 of 2025 Sanjeevravi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No. 3/2025.

2. S.Manikandan, Sub Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records connected to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2025, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal against the petitioner alone.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ponraj For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025, pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with others have proceeded in the two wheeler bearing TN 65 BA 2570 by showing Aruval and the same was video graphed by the petitioner and then it was uploaded in the social media along with communal song. Therefore, the respondent police have registered an FIR in Crime No.3 of 205 for the offences under Section 251(1)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 352 and

353(2) of BNS.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with this case and he is not a named accused in the FIR and only based on the confession statement of the one of the accused persons, the petitioner has been added as an accused in this case. Even as per the records, the petitioner recorded the video and apart from that there is no any allegation against this petitioner. He would further submit that without any material, the second respondent registered the case against the petitioner and now without conducting proper investigation, he has filed final report. Even as per the final report there are no any materials to constitute the offence as against the petitioner. All the allegations are against the first and second accused. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2025 is liable to be quashed.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the first and second accused persons rode the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 65 BA 2570 by showing Aruval in the public place and the petitioner took video of the said incident and uploaded the same in the social media along with communal song. Based on the said occurrence, the second respondent lodged the complaint and after elaborate investigation, final report has been filed. Therefore, the petitioner has to challenge the final report.

Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.Heard both sides and perused the records.

6.The prosecution case is that the first and second accused persons rode the said two wheeler with Aruval and the petitioner captured video and uploaded the same in the social media with a communal song. The allegation against the petitioner is that he only took the video graph of the said incident. The petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR and as per the confession statement of the accused No.1, the petitioner has been included in this case. Except the confession statement of A1, no any other material is available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner.

7.It is well settled that only based on a confession statement, a person cannot be roped into a case and he cannot face the ordeal of trial. Even charge sheet has been filed in this case, without any material against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be continued as against the petitioner. There are no materials to constitute the offences as against the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025 and the subsequent final report filed, which was based on the present FIR are quashed insofar as the petitioner is c