BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl. O.P(MD) No. 12949 of 2024

and

Crl.MP(MD)No.7975 of 2024

1.Ramesh

2.Geetha ... Petitioners/'B' Party

Vs

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its,

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Lalapet Police Station,

Karur District.

(In Crime No.251 of 2024) … 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. C.Thangasamy … 2^nd Respondent/Defacto

Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.251 of 2024 dated 11.05.2024

on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

For petitioners :Mr.AN.Ramanathan

For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.251 of 2024 dated 11.05.2024 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that to take cognizance of an offence under Section 160 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 159 IPC ought to have been satisfied. However, in the instant case, the same is not satisfied, and hence, he sought for the quashing of FIR.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that two persons, one Sumathi and Geetha/2^nd petitioner were involved in fight with each other and the same was happened in a public place and hence, in the instant case, the offence under Section 159 IPC will be clearly made out and hence, he sought for the dismissal of petition.

4. Section 159 of IPC is as follows:-

“ "Affray" as when two or more people fight in a public place, disturbing the public peace, making it a public nuisance/offense against public tranquility, leading to punishment under Section 160, involving potential imprisonment or fine.”

5. Section 160 of IPC is as follows:-

“ Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

deals with the Punishment for committing an affray which means disturbing public peace by fighting in a public place; the punishment involves imprisonment up to one month, a fine up to one hundred rupees, or both, and it's a bailable, cognizable, non-compoundable offense triable by any Magistrate.”

6. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by this Court dated 27.09.2018, in Crl.OP(MD)No.17260 of 2018, are as follows:-

“3.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments in order to substantiate the points raised by him. The first judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is reported in A.I.R 1938 MADRAS 924 in P.Rami Reddy and others vs. Chintha Chinna Narasi Reddy. The relevant portions of the judgment is extracted here under:

“....I am of opinion that fighting connotes necessarily a contest or struggle for mastery between two or more persons against one another. A struggle or a contest necessarily implies that there are two sides each of which is trying to obtain the mastery, so that unless there is some violence offered or threatened against one another, there could be no fight but only a mere assault or beating. In these circumstances, I am prepared to follow the view adopted by Horwill J. in the connected case and find that there was no fighting in the present case. It was merely a case of beating by members of one party of certain members of another party for which no doubt they could have been charged and punished, but as the prosecution deliberately chose to amend the charge, and rest their case entirely on the charge of affray, the case must stand or fall by what the prosecution has done. The offence of affray not having been established, the petitioners were entitled to be be acquitted of that charge. Their convictions and sentences under S.160, I.P.C, are therefore set aside and they are acquitted”...

4.The second judgment that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is reported in 2007 CRI. L.J. 4747 in Pushpa & Ors. V. Ravi & Ors. The relevant portions of t