P.Muralikannan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.4180 of 2026 P.Muralikannan, S/o.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem City, (Crime No. 6 of 2016) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of B.N.S.S., to set aside the order dated 6.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in C.M.P.No.36 of 2024 in C.C.No.681 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/4

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in C.M.P.No.36 of 2024 in C.C.No.681 of 2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner is only a Director and he has no role to play in the alleged offence. In this regard, he has relied upon Form -32, where his name finds place at the post of Non-executive Director. Apart from that the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has already relieved from the Director post since 21.01.2015, therefore the dismissal of the said application is liable to be interfered with.

3. The said statement was stoutly objected by the learned Government Advocate, who would submit that according to Section 239 of Cr.PC, the material available for framing of charge is only the police report and according to the police report there is material available against this petitioner. Hence, the impugned order does not deserve any interference at the hands of this Court. 2/4

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. While looking at the impugned order, the learned Judge referred that the charge sheet contains a specific allegation against this petitioner and that even in respect of L.W.1 statement he has referred about the involvement of this petitioner as a Director.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has been relieved from the post of Director since 21.01.2015, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate this can be gone into only at the time of trial, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. Hence, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.03.2026 mp 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

04.03.2026 4/4