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) 31929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Jayapal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.OP.(MD)No.5136 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.5501 of 2026 Jayapal ...Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.75 of 2026) ...1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Ganeshkumar The Inspector of Police, Immigratrion Officer (IO), Immigration Division Airport, Madurai. ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, to call for the entire records to the FIR in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthiah Poosari Amalan for Tamil Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

(for R1)

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by sole accused seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340 of BNS and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967.

2.The complaint has been lodged by the second respondent/Immigration Officer, Immigration Division Airport, Madurai, alleging that the petitioner is having 2 passports under 2 different identities, wherein the date of birth are different and the name of the petitioner's father also differs. The petitioner is said to have used both the passports to travel to Dubai as well as Malaysia..

3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first passport was obtained through agent and therefore, he was not aware of the first passport and he further submits that ingredients of Section 336 have not been made out.

4.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

5.A perusal of the FIR reveals that the prima facie has been made out as against the petitioner and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage especially when no legal grounds have been raised for quashing the FIR.

6.With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

11.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsg To

1.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

vsg Crl.OP.(MD)No.5136 of 2026

11.03.2026

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