SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
R. MAGUDEESWARI – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu Rep. By – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.OP.No.1924 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.OP.No.1924 of 2026

R.Magudeeswari ...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by,

The Inspector of Police,

Pollachi-West Police Station,

Coimbatore District.

Crime No.311 of 2014 ...Respondent

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to

set aside the impugned docket order passed in Copy Application SR.No.255

of 2025 in Crime No.311 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Pollachi, Coimbatore District, vide order dated 30.06.2025 and to direct the

Court to grant certified copies of the documents, which were sought by the

petitioner in the copy application filed by her bearing SR.No.255 of 2025

dated 24.06.2025, within the time limit stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Dhivyashree

For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl. Side)

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 03:45:06 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.OP.No.1924 of 2026

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside the

impugned docket order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Copy Application

SR.No.255 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi,

Coimbatore District, and to consequently, direct the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District, to provide the certified

copies of the documents, which were sought by the petitioner in the said

copy application filed by her on 24.06.2025.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

the wife of one Radhakrishnan, who died in a road accident on 22.12.2014,

for which, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.311 of 2014

for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, pursuant to the

complaint made by the petitioner. However, the said complaint was later

referred as 'mistake of fact'. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, along with her

two daughters, who were minors at the relevant point of time and the parents

of the deceased, filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.110 of 2015 before the

Sub Court, Pollachi. Since the First Information Report and other connected

documents were required for effective prosecution of their case and as the

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 03:45:06 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.OP.No.1924 of 2026

petitioner was not served with the closure report, the petitioner filed a copy

application in SR.No.255 of 2025, seeking photocopies of the relevant

documents such as FIR, Complaint, MVI Report, map, observation mahazar,

witness list, etc. However, merely because in the column named 'order if

any' of the said copy application, it has been mentioned as 'for appeal'

instead of ‘for claim petition’, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Pollachi, Coimbatore District, vide order dated 30.06.2025, returned the said

application with the following endorsement:-

'How the copy application reference mentioned as appeal

as the FIR in West Police Station in Crime No.311 of 2014 was

not yet taken on file by this Court. Hence returned'.

2.2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this is not

sustainable, since the petitioner and the other dependents of the deceased

Radhakrishnan, being the legal heirs of the victim are entitled to the

documents sought. However, without considering the same, the learned

Judge had returned the copy application filed by the petitioner, which is not

sustainable. Accordingly, she prayed for appropriate orders.

3. On the above said contentions, heard learned Government Advocate

(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 03:45:06 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.OP.No.1924 of 2026

4. The aforesaid facts are beyond cavil. As rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the other

dependents/claimants in MCOP.No.110 of 2015, being the legal heirs of the

deceased Radhakrishnan, are entitled to the copy of the relevant records

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top