IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA S.Bhavani ...Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Inspector of Police.

P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai – 600 012.

(Crime No. 366 of 2025)

2. Santhiya ...Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, to call for the entire records in connection with the FIR in Crime No.366 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent, P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl. Side), for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.366 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

Based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons assaulted the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and her sons and also abused them in a filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, a case in Crime No.366 of 2025, came to be registered on the file of the 1^st respondent for the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS as against the petitioner and three others. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of case and counter case and the 2^nd respondent is not a victim and instead, she is an aggressor, who along with other accused persons, assaulted the petitioner and her family members and thereby, one Logeshwari, who has been arrayed as A1, made a complaint before the 1^st respondent police and only as a counter blast, the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant gave the present complaint as against the petitioner/A2 and three others. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and except the general and ambiguous allegations, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner. He also submitted that there are CCTV footages available to show that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant is the real aggressor. However, without considering the same, the 1^st respondent-police have entertained the present false and exaggerated complaint made by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the 1^st respondent-police submitted that it is a case of case and counter case and the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant are neighbours and that in the above said alleged incident, both the parties have sustained injuries and based on the complaint given by the said Logeshwari, an FIR in Crime No.367 of 2025 came to be registered on the file of the 1^st respondent-police as against the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and other accused persons and that the above said complaints have been registered very recently during October 2025 and that the 1^st respondent-police are conducting enquiry in both the case in terms of PSO 566 and he fairly submitted that the 1^st respondent-police will conduct enquiry in both the cases and file final reports.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen that it is a case of case and counter case and in view of the fair submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court, directs the 1^st respondent-police to conduct enquiry in both the cases and file final reports in terms of PSO 566 as expeditiously as possible and shall also look into the material evidence if any, produced / furnished by the petitioner.

7. With the above direction, this criminal original petition stands dismissed accordingly.

06.02.2026 skt Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:

1. The Inspector of Police.

P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai