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) 24404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
S.Chelladurai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2026

& Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2002 & 2003 of 2026

S.Chelladurai ... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu,

1. The Inspector of Police,

Manur Police Station, Manur,

Tirunelveli District.

(crime No.627 of 2024)

2.Mahesh ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the

records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.5900 of 2025 on the file of

the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli and Quash the same in

respect of the petitioners as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate (Crl.)

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2026

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for quash of the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.5900 of

2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli and Quash

the same in respect of the petitioner as illegal.

2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. The case of the prosecution is

that on 25.08.2024 at about 06:00 p.m., while the defacto complainant was

inspecting various vehicles seized, the petitioner was seated on his two-wheeler

in front of the Manur Police Station, thereby causing obstruction to the public.

When questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner allegedly refused to

remove the vehicle, which continued to cause hindrance to the public. Pursuant

to the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No. 627 of

2024 was registered under Section 293 of BNS, 2023.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

offence under Section 293 of the BNS is not made out, as it is a non-cognizable

offence. No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without an

order of the Magistrate having the power to try such case or commit it for trial.

In such circumstances, the non-cognizable case ought to have been referred to

the Magistrate.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2026

4. He also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)

No. 16135 of 2021, wherein a similar issue was considered. This Court, by

order dated 09.11.2021 has categorically held that the Executive Magistrate has

been conferred with the power and jurisdiction to deal with the offence under

Section 291 of IPC (293 of BNS, 2023). The Statutory scheme contemplates

that with respect to commission of public nuisance, passing of an injunction

order restraining its commission and continuance or repetition of the act in

defiance of the injunction order to desist from indulging in the Act defiance of

the injury is within the powers of the Executive Magistrate and not the Police

Officer.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials available on record. Considering that the second respondent is a

police officer impleaded in his personal capacity, notice to him is dispensed

with.

6. This Court, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 16135 of 2021 vide order dated

09.11.2021 has held as follows:-

“9.What cannot be done directly cannot be done

indirectly also. This doctrine is based upon the Latin maxim

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2026

“Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per

obliquum”. This principle can be applied to criminal law also.

The respondent police could not have registered a case under

Section 290 of IPC on their own against the petitioners. In

order to overcome the statutory bar created by Section 155 of

Cr.Pc, the police invoked Section 291 of IPC. For the reasons

set out above, I hold that the very registration of the impugned

FIR is a clear abuse of legal process. It is quashed. The

criminal original petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.”

7. Fully fortified by the aforesaid

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