BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22124 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.19043 and 19044 of 2025

Rajesh ... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Kottar Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

(Cr.No.281 of 2023) ... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.78 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

District, dated 30.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chengizhkhan For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed invoking the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.78 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, arising out of Crime No.281 of 2023, in so far as the petitioner / Accused No.2 is concerned.

2. The petitioner stands charged for the alleged offences under Sections 447 and 379 of IPC (corresponding to Sections 329 and 303 of BNS, 2023) and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been roped into the criminal proceedings without any overt act, without any legal evidence, and only on account of collateral motives, thereby warranting interference at the threshold to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and the final report, is that on 24.09.2023, one Senthil Kumar lodged a complaint alleging that while he was riding his motorcycle on the beach road proceeding towards Kottar, a four-wheeler came from behind, hit him, and fled away without stopping. Since the details of the offending vehicle were allegedly not traceable through online platforms, the police were on the lookout for the said vehicle. It is stated that on 26.09.2023 at about 12.45 p.m., one Narayanan, stated to be a relative of the injured Senthil Kumar, informed the police that the offending vehicle was parked in front of the Traffic Investigation Wing office at Kottar.

4. The prosecution further alleges that as no person came to claim the vehicle till 2.45 p.m., the police personnel put a wheel lock and tied the vehicle with police ribbon, purportedly to mark the scene of occurrence, and thereafter went for other official duties. It is alleged that thereafter the owner of the vehicle, namely Accused No. 1, contacted the SSI, Sekar over phone and it was informed that the vehicle was detained in connection with the accident and that he should wait.

5. According to the prosecution, when the police officials returned, it was found that the vehicle had been taken away by Accused No.1 along with others, by breaking the wheel lock and removing the police ribbon, thereby committing criminal trespass, theft, and damage to public property. On the complaint of the second respondent / defacto complainant, the case was registered in Crime No.281 of 2023, investigated, and a final report was laid, arraying the petitioner herein as Accused No.2, which culminated in cognizance being taken in P.R.C.No.78 of 2025.

Case of the petitioner:

6. The petitioner contends that he is a practising Advocate and had accompanied Accused No.1 to the Kottar Police Station only in connection with an enquiry relating to his client. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was parked near the Traffic Investigation Wing office in the normal course and no wheel lock was fastened, nor was any ribbon tied to the vehicle. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after completion of the enquiry, Accused No.1 and the petitioner left