Arulraj @ Arul v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.1717 & 1720 of 2026 Arulraj @ Arul

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No.821 of 2023) 2.Ramesh Special Sub-Inspector of Police (1150), Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

...Respondents

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the case in P.R.C.No.61 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, at Vanur and quash the same . For Petitioner : Mr.Thiyagarajan For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.61 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2023, when the de facto complainant, a Special Sub-Inspector of Police was on his usual round conducting surveillance, Kathiresan @ Kathir [A1] and Ramesh [A2] each armed with a knife, were standing in the middle of the road and threatening the public who were passing by there. They claimed that they belonged to the gang of Arulraj @ Arul [A3] and that the said Arul had instructed them to threaten the public and extort money from them. They also abused the public using obscene language, caused obstruction to traffic and threatened to set fire to vehicles. When the de facto complainant attempted to apprehend them, A1 attempted to assault him with a knife and A2 attempted to attack him by aiming at his neck. On seeing the incident, the public gathered in large numbers and the traffic was completely paralysed. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.821 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(II) & 307 IPC. The respondent police, after completing the 2/6

investigation, filed the final report as against A1, A2 and the present petitioner (A3) for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353, 506 (II) & 307 IPC.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been unnecessarily roped in this case. He further submitted that the facts of the entire case would show that the proceedings were initiated only for detaining A1 and A2. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and the allegation against the petitioner is that A1 and A2 claimed that they belonged to the gang of the petitioner. Though the de facto complainant claims that several members of the public were present at the place of occurrence, no witnesses from the public were added and all the witnesses are police witnesses. In such circumstances, the entire proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner is a gang leader against whom several cases are pending. A1 and A2, who belong to the petitioner's gang, threatened the public using abusive language and created a ruckus on 3/6

the main road, thereby causing obstruction to traffic. When the de facto complainant attempted to apprehend A1 and A2, they attempted to kill him. Hence, the case.

5.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.

On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. A1 and A2 are said to have claimed that they belonged to the petitioner's gang. Though it is alleged that several members of the public witnessed the occurrence, no independent witness has been cited in this case. Except for the claim of A1 and A2 that they belong to petitioner's gang, there is absolutely no material to implicate the petitioner. This Court, therefore, finds that the entire proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 7.

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in P.R.C.No.61 of 2025 is hereby quashed as against the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

05.02.2026 4/6

rpl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

rpl 05.02.2026 6/6