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) 38649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Radha – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL.O.P(MD)No.3031 of 2026 | CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.3284 and 6348 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Ramakrishnan
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Albert James Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)

Summons valid post-case revival; must strictly comply with S.94 BNSS.

Headnote:The petition challenges summons issued under S.528 BNSS, 2023, after FIR closure as mistake of fact and subsequent revival via protest petition. Court directed fresh summons per prior order in Crl.R.C(MD)No.201 of 2023. No illegality found in issuance. Issue framed: Whether summons complies with court order and S.94 BNSS post-case revival. Ratio: Case reopened by High Court; summons valid but must strictly follow S.94 BNSS. Criminal Original Petition disposed with direction for fresh compliant summons.

Table of Content
1. petition to quash summons after fir closure. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. protest petition revived investigation. (Para 3)
3. summons upheld with fresh compliance direction. (Para 5 , 6)

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by the third accused in Crime No.26 of 2021, on the file of respondent-Police seeking to quash the summons issued on 03.02.2026 directing the Petitioner to appear on 06.01.2026.

2.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, FIR in Crime No.26 of 2021 was referred to as ‘mistake of fact’ and a final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.02.2022. In such circumstances, the summons cannot be issued by the Investigating Agency. He further submits that the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.26 of 2021.

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that though the case was closed as ‘mistake of fact’, the de-facto complainant had filed Crl.M.P.No. 13849 of 2022 by way of protest petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 8.12.2022. Challenging the same, the complainant filed Crl.R.C(MD)No,.201 of 2023 before this Court and the same was allowed on 3.3.2023.

This Court has directed the Investigating Agency to issue fresh summons to the Petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, summons is not strictly in accordance with the orders passed in Crl.R.C(MD)No.201of 2023.

4.The grievance of the Petitioner is that the summons is dated 3.2.2026 and the Petitioner has been directed to appear on

6.1.2026.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6.In view of the above said facts, it is clear that the criminal case as against the Petitioner has been reported by this Court by way of order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.201 of 2023 and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the issuance of summons by the Investigating Agency. However, the respondent-Police is directed to issue fresh summons in strict compliance of Section 94 of BNSS, 2023, if they like to proceed further.

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