BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6459 of 2025 in Crl.MP(MD) Nos.4687 and 4688 of 2025 Ranjith ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No.551/2024.

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. Nithiya .... Respondent/

Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C. No. 61 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gangaraj For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

2. The petitioner stands arrayed as the sole accused in the above calendar case, which arises out of FIR in Crime No.551 of 2024 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 132, 296(b), 79, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the FIR and the final report, is that the defacto complainant was serving as a Forest Ranger on probation at Ambasamudram. The petitioner was employed as a driver in the same office. It is alleged that due to certain administrative issues, the petitioner was removed from service, which gave rise to animosity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.

4. On 24.10.2024, at about 01.48 p.m., when the defacto complainant was present in front of her residence, the petitioner is alleged to have approached her, abused her in filthy language, questioned her authority in removing him from service, and further threatened her with dire consequences, including a threat to her life.

5. Based on the said complaint, the FIR came to be registered on 29.10.2024. After investigation, a final report was filed on 13.11.2024, which culminated in the case being taken on file as C.C.No.61 of 2025.

Grounds for quash:

6. The petitioner seeks quashment primarily on the following grounds:

(i) The complaint is alleged to be malicious and motivated, arising out of a personal relationship that had turned sour.

(ii) There is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the complaint.

(iii) The allegations are vague and do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged.

(iv) The investigation is alleged to be mechanical and not in accordance with law.

(v) The essential ingredients of offences under Sections 132, 296(b), 79, 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act are not made out.

(vi) The proceedings amount to abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.

Arguments on either side:

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire prosecution case is a result of personal vendetta. It is contended that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a consensual relationship, which later deteriorated due to familial objections, and the present complaint has been lodged only to harass the petitioner.

8. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.10.2024, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 29.10.2024 without any explanation for the delay, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the complaint.

9. The learned counsel would also contend that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not constitute the offences alleged, particularly in the absence of any overt act amounting to criminal force, public obstruction, or actionable criminal intimidation.

10. Per contra,