BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.21410 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.18414 and 18416 of 2025

1. Abraham @ Abiraham

2. Shervin Santha Sudhan @ Serin Satha Sudan

3. William Rajan @ Villiyam Rajan

4. Goodwin Solomon Raj

5. Abeth Manohar

6. Dheelipraj ... Petitioners / Accused Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, (Law and Order), Madurai City.

2. Rajaselvam ... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the above C.C.No. 666 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(Additional Mahila) Madurai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Madurai, and quash the same.

Preface:

2. The present petition under Section 528 BNSS is a request to interdict criminal prosecution at the threshold by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Such power is extraordinary, and is to be exercised sparingly, to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

3. The petitioners/A1 to A6 seek quashment of the final report and consequential proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Madurai, arising out of a dispute stated to have occurred inside the CSI Church premises, allegedly culminating in a “case and counter case”.

Case of the Prosecution:

4. The case of the prosecution, as projected in the complaint of the second respondent/de facto complainant and the consequent investigation, is that the de facto complainant is a member of CSI Church at Keelavasal, Madurai. It is alleged that on 03.11.2024 at about 10.00 a.m., when one Raja Stalin announced the income of the Church during a meeting, certain members questioned the expenses and raised their voice, in that course, the petitioners are alleged to have abused, threatened, and assaulted the de facto complainant. Based on the complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.666 of 2025 for offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

5. After investigation, the respondent police laid a final report and the learned Magistrate took cognizance and the case is stated to be pending as C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Madurai. The prosecution would contend that there was a real occurrence and that both sides abused and attacked each other, that injuries are reflected in the final report, and that the existence of a counter version does not ipso facto render the present final report illegal.

Grounds urged for quash:

6. The petitioners contend, inter alia, as follows:

The very registration of the case and filing of the charge sheet is opposed to law and probabilities. There is a case and counter case arising from the same occurrence, yet the police have filed final reports in both. According to the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to follow the Police Standing Orders (PSO), particularly the guideline relating to “case and case in counter”, and to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to which version is true, and not to proceed mechanically with final reports in both. The incident is stated to have occurred inside a Church hall where CCTV is allegedly available, the police did not seize/verify the CCTV footage and therefore the investigation is unfair and incomplete. There is no specific overt act attributed to each petitioner; allegations are omnibus and vague.

Submissions:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that th