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) 16072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
SAKTHIVEL – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep By The Inspector of Police – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.O.P.No.1922 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM:

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

Crl.O.P.No.1922 of 2026

1. Sakthivel

2. Revthi ... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The State of represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

Mangalamedu Police Station,

Perambalur District.

(Crime No.147 of 2021)

2. Prema ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the

records relating to C.C.No.224 of 2023 pending adjudication before the

Additional Mahila Court, Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur and quash the

same.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ragavan

For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:58 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.O.P.No.1922 of 2026

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to

quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.224 of 2023,

on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2021, due to

previous enmity, the accused abused the de facto complainant and her

daughter in filthy language, assaulted them with wooden logs and

threatened with dire consequences. Based on the complaint lodged by the

second respondent/de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.147 of 2021

was registered on 02.03.2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323,

324, 506(II) of IPC and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act, 2002. After completion of the investigation, the final report

was filed before the Court concerned and the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.224 of 2023, which is

now sought to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

the de facto complainant and her family were the aggressors who picked up

a quarrel and in respect of the same incident, the first petitioner herein had

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:58 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.O.P.No.1922 of 2026

lodged a complaint against the second respondent herein and others. Based

on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.146 of 2021 was registered under

Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(II) of IPC. He further submitted that

only as counterblast to the petitioners’ complaint, the present case was

registered by the second respondent. He also submitted that proceeding with

the trial against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

the first respondent submitted that this is a case of case and counter and that

in respect of the incident occurred on 01.03.2021, two First Information

Reports were registered. He further submitted that first respondent, after

completion of the investigation, filed final reports in both cases before the

same court, following PSO 566 and that in respect of the case in Crime

No.146 of 2021, cognizance was taken in C.C.No.69 of 2023. He also

submitted that as far as this case is concerned, the victim sustained injuries

and in respect thereof, the statement of the Doctor and the would certificate

are also available. He further submitted that both the cases are being tried on

different dates.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:58 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.O.P.No.1922 of 2026

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6. It is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Nathi Lal and other Vs State of U.P. and another reported in

1990 (Supp) SCC 145, the relevant portion of which is extracted

hereunder:-

“We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a

matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to

direct that the same learned judge must try both the

cross cases one after the other. After the recording of

evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the

arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter,

he must proceed to hear the cross

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