BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI and CRL MP(MD)No.3435 of 2026

1. Muniyaraj, 2. Sankar, 3. Saritha, 4. Santhi, 5. Hemalatha, 6. Dhanasekar, 7. Ragu, 8. Subburaj ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 8 Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by, Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station , Thoothukudi District, Crime No.349/2025.

2. Sundaram, Sub Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-

To call for the records pertaining to the case Crime No.349/2025 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same in so far as the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8.

For Petitioner : M/s.J.David Ganesan, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/s.Thanga Aravindh.B Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the case Crime No.349/2025 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same in so far as the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8.

2. The learned counsel that petitioner submitted that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 8 in crime No.349 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police station for the offences under Sections 3(5), 296(b), 126(2), 121(1), 132 r/w 49 of BNS, 2023. The case of the prosecution is that on 12/12/2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the de-facto complainant received oral information from one Velraj S/o. Pandi Nadar, who is the brother of the accused person, stating that he has been continuously conducting pooja activities in the temple namely Munasamy Temple, Kattayanoor, for the past several years. In this regard, a continuous pooja for the Tamil month Karthigai was also conducted by the said Velraj. In order to conduct the same in the present year, the said Velraj had gone to the temple, by which time the petitioners joined together and prevented him from entering into the temple. Therefore, the said Velraj had lodged a complaint and the same was taken on file in CSR No.737 of 2025 by the first respondent police. There after the de-facto complainant along with some police officials went to the said temple at about 12:00 p.m, on 12/12/2025 and enquired about the incident with the petitioners, during which time the petitioners had illegally prevented the respondent police from discharging their duties by conducting an enquiry and also abused the respondent police. Further the petitioners also attacked the police officials and threatened them with dire consequences and they have also caused injury to one Head Constable No.933. In this regard, this case was registered. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are vague, bald and sweeping in nature and no specific overt act is made out as against each of the petitioners and hence sought the indulgence of this Court for quashment of the First Information Report.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that it is a clear case of assault and criminal force, deterring the respondent police from discharging their duties and in fact the 4th petitioner herein had gone to the extent of biting the finger of one Women Head Constable bearing Head Constable No.933 and they have intentionally registered the case for the offences including Section 132 and 126(2) of BNS and hence each of them have abused the police party with filthy words and hence each of the offences are made out and sought for dismissal of the criminal original petition.

4. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. A careful reading of the First Information Report itself would make it clear that the offences under Section 296(b) of BNS is not made out since no public has given any complaint as against the petitioners as to they were annoyed by the utterances of the petitioners. Section 126(2)

of BNS is defines, wrongful restraint, which is extracted as follows :

" Section 126 - Wrongful