BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22060 of 2025 and Crl.MP.(MD)No.18984 of 2025

1. Sivasubramanian

2. Selvaraj

3. Murugesan

4. Francis Xavier

5. Sekar

6. Joseph Jeyakumar

7. Palaniyappan

8. Alex Arputham .... Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB Trichy Crime No.12/2020

2. Velusamy ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and Quash the same.

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

For R-2 : Mr.Arul Jennifer

ORDER

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is intended to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.

2. Such power is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations in the First Information Report or the materials collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides.

3. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

4. The petitioners seek to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2020 and to quash the same as illegal, contending that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the FIR and the materials placed, is that the second respondent is a civil engineer carrying on construction activities in the name and style of “Vignesh Construction” for more than two decades and had undertaken several large-scale projects.

6. It is alleged that during the years 2008–2009, the second respondent purchased centring and construction materials from one Xavier Raj through proper bills and payments, mostly effected through cheques.

7. Subsequently, the petitioners claimed that the said materials were not sold but were leased to the said Xavier Raj by the first petitioner, and that the same had been fraudulently sold to the second respondent.

8. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners forcibly entered the premises of the second respondent, criminally intimidated him, and attempted to unlawfully recover materials by falsely claiming ownership.

9. It is further alleged that officials of the District Crime Branch, acting in connivance with the petitioners, illegally detained the second respondent, seized original documents, and forcibly obtained signatures on blank papers and cheques, under the guise of a fabricated judicial order.

10. The prosecution case proceeds on the footing that centring materials worth about Rs.1.75 crores were unlawfully seized without any valid court order and were never produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

11. After several representations and litigations, including writ petitions before this Court, the matter was directed to be investigated, pursuant to which Crime No.30 of 2018 was registered and later transferred and renumbered as Crime No.12 of 2020 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 448, 379, 468, 469, 195, 196, and 201 IPC and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

12. The petitioners contend that the FIR is a counterblast to an earlier complaint lodged by the first petitioner in the year 2009 regarding non-return of rented centring materials.

13. According to the petitioners, the dispute is purely civil in nature, arising out of alleged leasing and sale of construction materials, and does not di