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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.