Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Thommai Antony – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14386 of 2025|Crl.M.P.(MD).No.11662 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Pandiyaraj
For the Respondents: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
The court determined that the existence of a counter complaint does not warrant quashing of the FIR without further investigation.
Headnote:The petitioners sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.197 of 2025 under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of BNS, 2023. They contended it was false and a counter to their mother's complaint. The court noted the investigation must proceed fairly due to competing complaints. The petition was closed with instructions to follow due process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for quashing an fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on investigation validity. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on false complaints. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR in Crime No.197 of 2025, which has been registered for the offences under Section 296(b) and 115(2) of B NS , 2023 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The grounds raised by the petitioners are that the defacto complainant's sons had committed offences against the first petitioner's wife and the mother of the petitioners lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant's sons, which was registered in Crime No.196 of 2025 for the offences under Section 3(5), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 305 and 351(2) of B NS , 2023 and that only to counter the said complaint, the instant FIR was lodged. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent is not conducting the investigation in the complaint filed by them in an effective manner.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the victims were injured in the incident and were treated as in-patients and they have also produced the entries made in the Accident Register to substantiate their case and that since the points raised by the petitioners involve factual disputes, this Court may not interfere with the investigation.
4. The main ground raised by the petitioners is that the complaint against them is false, since it was lodged only as a counter to the complaint filed by the mother of the petitioners against the defacto complainant's sons. This Court is of the view that such a ground may not be available to the petitioners to seek quashing of the instant FIR. The first respondent shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner by following the procedure under Order 588-A of the Police Standing Orders, since admittedly, there is a counter complaint.
