Thomas Sebastian v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and CRL.MP.No.6657 of 2026 Thomas Sebastian ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police (PEW), Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kanchipuram.

2. The Revenue Inspector Sriperumbudur.

..Respondent(s) To call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 46/2025 dt. 14.03.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Annaamalai For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.46 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 125, 286, 287 BNS and Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that, though the inspection was conducted on 03.12.2024, the FIR has been registered only on 14.03.2025. There is a delay of nearly four months. Further, even according to the respondent Police, the sample collected and sent for chemical analysis, confirms that the items contain methyl alcohol to the extent of 95% and not ethyl alcohol. The ethyl alcohol alone is used in the preparation of illicit arrack. A former employee sent a false complaint to Chief Minister cell and based on the same, the FIR has been registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither the proprietor nor the owner of the Therelek Machines Company, but only an employee.

3. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the Lab report confirms the presence of methyl alcohol. It is further submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner had requisite permission to use methyl alcohol requires verification. Now, the investigation is at a crucial stage and the investigation will be completed and final report will be field within a period of two months. However, the petitioner's contention and defence, would be considered during investigation. If the petitioner's contention has any merits, accordingly, steps will be taken. The above statement is recorded.

4. Considering the submissions of the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that the investigation is at the initial stage and this Court finds no merit to entertain this petition at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To

1. The Inspector of Police (PEW), State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kanchipuram.

2. The Revenue Inspector Sriperumbudur.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

PVS 17-04-2026