Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Thiruloga Sundar @ Thiruma Chezhiyan @ Thirulokachandrabose – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl.OP.(MD)No.5125 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.S.Arjun
For the Respondents:Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(crl.side)
Absence of criminal intent justifies quashing FIR for unauthorized flex board despite charge sheet.
Headnote:Under Section 4A(1b) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, the petitioner erected a flex board to welcome a political leader without permission despite warnings, leading to FIR in Crime No.1128/2021. The court found no criminal intent, supported by the petitioner's affidavit of apology and undertaking not to repeat. Charge sheet filed in S.T.C.No.40/2024. The issue framed was whether prosecution should continue absent intent to offend. The ratio decidendi holds that lack of mens rea, evidenced by political welcome purpose and subsequent apology, justifies quashing FIR even post charge sheet, as no useful purpose served by prosecution. FIR in Crime No.1128/2021 and consequent proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir details and facts of unauthorized flex board. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's lack of intent and apology affidavit. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. quashing fir for absence of mens rea. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the first accused in crime No.1128 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the FIR, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Section 4A(1b) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
2. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner is said to have put up a flex board to welcome the leader of a political party, who is also a member of Parliament. Despite several warnings, he has not removed the flex board.
Hence, the present F.I.R.
3. In the meantime, a charge sheet has been laid in S.T.C.No.40 of 2024, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, for the alleged above said offences.
4. It is a settled position of law that filing of a charge sheet would not be a legal impediment for considering quashing of the FIR, if legal grounds are made out.
5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, he had only put up a flex board to welcome the Member of Parliament and he had no intention to commit any offence. He had filed an affidavit dated 25.03.2026.
Paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit is extracted as follows:-
“I submitted that herein after I will not erect any flex board related to any political party even otherwise if needed in future I will apply for the proper permission from the concern authority. For the earlier incident of erecting flex board without permission, I seek sincere apology before this Hon'ble Court.”
6. Considering the above said facts, it is clear that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit any offence except putting up a flex board in welcoming the Member of Parliament. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution as against the petitioner. Therefore, F.I.R. in crime No.1128 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police which has culminated in filing of S.T.C.No.40 of
2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, is quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
06.04.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai.
