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.21484 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.18489 of 2025 Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District, Crime No. 588/2025.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Cr.No.588 of

2025 on the file of 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

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

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.588 of 2025, dated 27.10.2025, on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 132 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 353 and 506(ii) of IPC) and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The petition raises serious allegations of illegal detention, mechanical registration of FIR, abuse of police power, and mala fide invocation of penal provisions, while the respondent State relies upon secret information, seizure of weapon, and the alleged criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

Case of the prosecution:

3. According to the prosecution, on 27.10.2025, based on secret information received by the respondent police, the first respondent along with other police personnel proceeded for patrolling duty at Chettipatti Junction on the Trichy–Dindigul National Highway.

4. It is alleged that at about 02.00 p.m., a Toyota Fortuner car bearing Registration No. TN-57-CK-6 was intercepted. The vehicle was allegedly driven rashly and did not stop despite police signals, compelling the police to chase and eventually stop the vehicle. Upon inspection, the police claim to have recovered a long knife concealed beneath the seat, along with four mobile phones and cash of Rs.

1,00,000/-.

5. On enquiry, the petitioner allegedly disclosed that a rival group had planned to attack him and that he had kept the weapon and money to mount a counter-attack and for expenses relating to engaging hired assailants. On the basis of the above allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered in Crime No.588 of 2025, and the petitioner was arrested.

Case of the petitioner:

6. The petitioner has categorically denied the prosecution version and asserts that he was illegally taken into custody from his residence at Chennai in the early hours of the same day, even before the alleged time of occurrence. According to the petitioner, the vehicle in question was driven by police personnel, while he was transported in a police van, and the alleged recovery is a planted version, contrary to the factual sequence captured in CCTV footage.

7. The petitioner further contends that on the very same day, another FIR in Crime No.587 of 2025 was registered by the same police station, reflecting a pattern of mechanical and vindictive registration of cases. It is the petitioner’s case that the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and that the proceedings are a colourable exercise of power.

Counter of the 1^st respondent:

8. The first respondent police filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the petition. It is stated that the FIR was registered strictly in accordance with law based on credible secret information and contemporaneous recovery of weapon and cash. The respondent asserts that after registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted, the spot of occurrence was inspected, and statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corroborating the prosecution version.

9. The respondent further brought to the notice