IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.1809 of 2026

1. V.Dayanidhi

2. D.Panneerselvam ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station, Tirupattur District.

(Crime No.422 of 2025)

2. Chitra ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 29.11.2025 in FIR No.422 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent Police and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Muthukumaran For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.422 of 2025, pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent/de facto complainant is working as a Headmistress at the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chinnamalayampattu. On 29.11.2025, during school hours, the accused went to the school of the de facto complainant, abused her and threatened her with dire consequences, in respect of the repayment of a loan borrowed by her, as the cheques given by her had been dishonoured. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.422 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 132, 351(2) and 329(4) of the BNS and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, which is now sought to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant had borrowed money from the petitioners and had issued post-dated cheques. He further submitted that in order to preempt the petitioners from presenting the cheques for collection and initiating proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act, a false complaint has been given. Therefore, he prayed to quash the First Information Report against the petitioners.

4. The submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) are as follows:-

4.1. The petitioners/accused had trespassed into the school where the de facto complainant is working as a Headmistress and threatened her in front of the students.

4.2. There are ample materials against the petitioners and statements from the students who witnessed the incident are also available.

4.3. The case was registered only on 29.11.2025 and that the investigation is at a very nascent stage.

4.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Vs.

M.Maridoss and Another reported in (2023) 4 SCC 338, has held that, as per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law.

4.5. The case was registered only on 29.11.2025 and therefore, the First Information Report against the petitioner is not liable to be quashed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. That the case was registered only on 29.11.2025, the investigation is at a very nascent stage and there are materials against the petitioner are not in dispute. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Maridoss (supra), the right conferred upon the investigating agency should not be stifled and a reasonable time must be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interdict the investigation at this stage.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

However, the first respondent police is directed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation.

09.02.2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham To

1. The I