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.23128 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.20039 of 2025 Dinesh Pandi ... Petitioner / Accused No.1 Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District.

(In Crime No.429 of 2025)

2. Jamunadevi ... 2^nd Respondent / De-facto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for records in Crime No.429 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Logesh Kumar For R-1 : Mr.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The said power, though wide, is circumscribed by well-settled judicial principles and is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations, 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.

2. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.429 of 2025, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the ground that the same is a false and foisted case and that the continuation of investigation would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the First Information Report, is that on 08.11.2025, at about 05.15 hours, the defacto complainant was standing at a bus stop near SSG Mahal, Theni.

4. It is alleged that at that time, the accused approached the defacto complainant, threatened her by brandishing a knife, and forcibly snatched an amount of Rs.200/- from her money purse. It is further alleged that the accused declared himself to be a notorious rowdy of Bommaigoundanpatti area with an intention to intimidate the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the occurrence to any third party.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that though the accused was chased by one Prakash and Sudhakar immediately after the occurrence, he managed to escape. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the first respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.429 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences and commenced investigation.

Grounds for quash:

6. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner are as follows:

(a) That a cursory reading of the FIR would reveal that the case is a fabricated and put-up one, foisted against the petitioner with ulterior motives.

(b) That the ingredients of Sections 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not made out from the averments contained in the FIR.

(c) That the complaint has been instituted with mala fide intention and therefore, the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, warranting interference by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction.

Arguments on either side:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable and do not inspire confidence. It is submitted that the alleged recovery amount is meagre, that there is no independent corroboration, and that the invocation of serious penal provisions is wholly unwarranted. According to the learned counsel, the continuation of the investigation would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and amount to an abuse of process of law.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)

appearing for the first respondent would submit that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizabl