Prabhu @ Prabhaharan v. The Assistant Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P. Nos.987 & 988 of 2026
1. Prabhu @ Prabhaharan
2. Balu @ Balasubramani ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.
Crime No.251 of 2025.
2. The Inspector Of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.
3. M.Ravi ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the Criminal Case in Spl.SC.No.43 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Namakkal and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Neelavathi P For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Santhosh, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1&R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.43 of 2025 pending on the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Namakkal. 2.
The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2025 at about 09.00 p.m., due to a long-standing dispute, A1 picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant over parking of a vehicle, abused him in a filthy language, intentionally insulted him by calling him by his caste name, threatened him, and assaulted him, causing him to fall down. When the sister of the de facto complainant intervened, she was also pushed down. A2 and A3 aided A1 in the occurrence. The de facto complainant was, thereafter, taken to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, for treatment. Hence, the complaint. 3.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that L.W.3, who is cited as an eye-witness, has not spoken about the involvement of
the petitioners. On the contrary, L.W.5 and L.W.6 who are also eye-witnesses, have stated that the petitioners merely intervened to pacify the dispute between A1 and the de facto complainant and that they have not committed any offence, as alleged.
4.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners, along with the main accused, have abused and assaulted the de facto complainant. He further submitted that there are eye witnesses who have spoken about the involvement of the petitioners and the same is a matter to be decided during trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. He also submitted that sufficient materials are available on record and that the trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioners.
5.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought the indulgence of this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial court.
6.
Taking note of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the trial has already commenced, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial proceedings at this stage.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, acceding to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall be duly represented by their counsel before the trial court on all hearing dates. As far as the stay petition in Crl.MP.No.987 of 2026 is concerned, the same stands closed. Crl.MP.No.988 of 2026 which is filed for dispensing with personal appearance is ordered in the above terms.
29-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VKR
To
1. The Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Namakkal
2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.
Crime No.251 of 2025.
3. The Inspector Of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
VKR and Crl.M.P. Nos.987 & 988 of 2026 29-01-2026