IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 6170 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4566 & 4567 of 2026

1. Chozan (Wrongly mentioned as Sozhan instead of Chozan in F.I.R) S/o.Nanthikesavan, No.1, Manipuram, Soundharyapuram, Tiruvannamalai District - 604408.

2. Manikandan E (Wrongly mentioned as Manigandan instead of Mankandan in F.I.R)

S/o.Egamaparam, No.64, Pillayar Kovil Street, Narmapallam, Veerambakkam, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai - 604 408.

3. Perumal S/o.Subramani, No.201, Manipuram, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Soundaryapuram, Tiruvannamalai District - 604 408.

4. Thirumal S/o.Mohanam, No.230, Padasalai Street, Melma, Tiruvannamalai -

604408.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

In Cr.No.320 of 2023

2.Kalaiselvan S/o.Loganathan, VadaAlapiranthan Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): M/S. Henri Tihangne VC For Respondent(s): M/s. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Pp

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 234 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyar. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and others trespassed into the defacto complainant's land and objected the defacto complainant from giving his land to the SIPCOT. Therefore, the petitioners and others participated in the Salem express way protest. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.320 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 506(i) & 447 of IPC as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.234 of 2023. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused materials available on record.

6.It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482, the Court should be slow, at the same time, if the Court finds that from the entire materials collected by the prosecution taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, in such situation, directing the parties to undergo ordeal of trial will be a futile exercise and it will infringe the right of the persons and in this regard, the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, has been held as follows:

“........

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or -complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non~cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a