Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Vijayakumar, J
Kumaraguru – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. O.P(MD)No. 9066 of 2026|Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9709 & 9711 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.Antony Arulraj
For the Respondents: P.Samuel Gunasingh

In cases of cross-complaints resulting in positive charge sheets, the Trial Court must simultaneously evaluate both charge sheets and adjudicate the cases on their merits, rather than quashing proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, provided specific allegations of criminality exist.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to quash the charge sheet against him in C.C. No. 27 of 2021 for offenses under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) of the IPC. The petitioner contended that due process (P.S.O. 566) was not followed and argued that no specific overt act was attributed to him in the charge sheet. The court observed that the existence of a counter-case and positive charge sheets filed by the investigating agency requires the Trial Court to evaluate both cases side-by-side in accordance with the precedent set in T.Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The core issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the petitioner's argument regarding procedural lapses and lack of specific overt acts. The court held that the presence of specific allegations in the police report, balanced against the existence of a counter-case, necessitated a merit-based trial rather than a summary quashing of the charges. The Ratio Decidendi iterates that where cross-cases result in positive charge sheets, the Trial Court must adjudicate the matter by comparing the allegations in both cases as per settled judicial procedure. The final outcome is that the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, with the petitioner granted liberty to raise all arguments before the Trial Court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges criminal charges alleging procedural failures in cross-case investigations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by the first accused in C.C.No.

27 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, seeking quash the charge sheet, wherein the petitioner is charged for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC.

2. On perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioner along with other accused persons said to have been attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant said to have been sustained simple injuries.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the case and case in counter and the Investigating Officer has not followed P.S.O. 566. He further submits that the Trial Court, while taking cognizance, has not passed detailed order. He further submits that no specific overt-act has been attributed as against the first accused.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

appearing for the first respondent would submit that a positive charge sheet has been filed in the case in which the present petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.25 of 2021 before the same Court. He further submits that it is for the concerned Court to decide both the cases on merits by comparing the allegations found in both the charge sheets.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. As far as the allegations levelled in the case and counter case are concerned, which resulted in filing of positive charge sheet by the Investigating Agency, it is for the Trial Court to consider both the charge sheets and follow the judement of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.Balaji and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2024) 4 LW 534 (FB). As far as the present petition is concerned, as the specific allegations are levelled as against the petitioner herein, this Court does not find any reason to quash the charge sheet. However, all the arguments of the petitioner are left open to raise before the Trial Court.

7. With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASR.Vijayakumar, JKumaraguru – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCrl. O.P(MD)No. 9066 of 2026|Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9709 & 9711 of 2026

In cases of cross-complaints resulting in positive charge sheets, the Trial Court must simultaneously evaluate both charge sheets and adjudicate the cases on their merits, rather than quashing proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, provided specific allegations of criminality exist.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Vijayakumar, J
Kumaraguru – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. O.P(MD)No. 9066 of 2026|Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9709 & 9711 of 2026