BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21493 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.18497 and 18499 of 2025

1. Aandisami @ Andichamy

2. Pandi @ Pandiyan

3. Irulammal

4. Dinesh

5. Rani

6. Karthikaisami @ Karthik

7. Selvi

8. Nagammal .. Petitioners

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by,

Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk,

Usilampatti Police Station,

Madurai District.

(FIR No. 81/2023) .... Respondent / Complainant

2. N.Divya .... Respondent /

De-facto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet made in S.T.C.No.250 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court-1, Usilampatti, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Though the power is extraordinary in nature, it is equally well settled that when the uncontroverted allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, this Court would be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not interdict such proceedings at the threshold.

2. The present Criminal Original Petition raises a recurring yet significant issue relating to the indiscriminate invocation of Section

160 of the Indian Penal Code, without satisfying the essential statutory ingredients of affray, as defined under Section 159 IPC. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.10-17.

Facts and case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as borne out from the charge sheet, is that on 09.04.2021, while the police officials of the first respondent station were on routine patrol duty, they allegedly noticed a group clash between two rival groups, namely, A-party (Accused Nos.1 to 9)

and B-party (the petitioners-A10-17 herein).

4. It is alleged that both the groups indulged in a quarrel over a dispute relating to drainage and pathway and caused nuisance, thereby disturbing public peace. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, who is none other than a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the very same police station, a case in Crime No.81 of 2021 came to be registered for the offence under Section 160 IPC.

5. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance as S.T.C. No.250 of 2022 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, arraying a total of 19 accused, divided into two rival groups.

Grounds for quash:

The petitioners assail the impugned proceedings on the following, among other, grounds:

6. The charge sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 160 IPC. There is no material whatsoever to show that the alleged altercation resulted in disturbance of public peace. No independent complaint has been lodged by any member of the public, and the entire prosecution is founded solely on a complaint by a police officer. Several of the petitioners were not even present at the place of occurrence and were admittedly out of station at the relevant point of time.

7. The issue is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17260 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11296 of 2021 dated 04.10.2021, wherein the scope of Sections 159 and 160 IPC has been exhaustively analysed. The present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973.

Submissions:

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in order to attract Section 160 IPC, there must be a clear allegati