Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31929
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
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthiah Poosari Amalan for Tamil Law Firm
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)(for R1)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heard both sides and perused the material records.
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.
With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
