BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23368 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.20237 and 20240 of 2025 Balaji ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station, Sivagangai.

(FIR No. 63/2025) .... Respondent / Complainant

2. Gnanavel .... Respondent /

De-facto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and quash the final report in STC No.730/2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For R-1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report in S.T.C.No.730 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari, Sivagangai District, and to quash the same as illegal.

Preface:

2. This Criminal Original Petition is filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.730 of 2025, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as A3 for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 339, 294(b), 324 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The challenge is primarily founded on the manner of investigation, which, according to the petitioner, suffers from fundamental legal infirmities, particularly non-compliance with Police Standing Order 566, violation of the binding Full Bench decision of this Court in T. Balaji v. State, and breach of the statutory mandate under the BNSS.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and the final report, is that on 01.09.2025 at about 9.00 p.m., the de-facto complainant, after completing his work, was returning home on his two-wheeler along Kovilkalai Road. It is alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioner, intercepted the de-facto complainant and attacked him with stones and wooden logs, allegedly with an intention to kill him.

5. It is further alleged that upon the de-facto complainant raising alarm, one Kulanthaivelu intervened and rescued him, following which the complaint was lodged. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police registered the FIR and, after investigation, laid the impugned final report against the petitioner as A3 for the aforesaid offences.

Case of the petitioner / grounds for quash:

6. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated and that he was neither present at the scene of occurrence nor connected with the alleged incident in any manner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the occurrence resulted in a case and counter case, and that two FIRs, namely FIR No.63 of 2025 and FIR No.64 of 2025, were registered arising out of the same transaction. According to the petitioner, despite the existence of a case and counter case, the Investigating Officer has filed the impugned final report in clear violation of Police Standing Order 566, which governs the procedure to be followed in such cases.

7. It is further contended that the impugned final report was filed hurriedly, during the pendency of a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18119 of 2025, without determining the real aggressor, as mandated under PSO 566. The petitioner also points out that the impugned final report is completely silent about the counter complaint and the injuries sustained by the accused on the opposite side, despite the admitted fact that A1 was hospitalised as an inpatient for eight days.

8. It is further alleged that the respondent police declined to furnish Call Detail Records sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, which