P.Muruganantham v. S.N.K.Eswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR P.Muruganantham S/o. Late.Palanisamy, 88A, Valluvar Street, Porur Post, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. S.N.K.Eswaran S/o. K.Kanthasamy, Venkateshwara Constructions, Old Bus Stand Building, Thiruchengode.
2. Nithya D/o. Selvam, No.3/11, Pokkampalayam, Kumaramangalam Post, Thiruchengode.
3. The Manager District Industries Centre (DIC), Erode District.
4. The Branch Manager Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, South Ratha Street, Thiruchengode.
5. K.Balasundaram S/o. Kanthasamy, Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Thiruchengode.
6. Vijayakumar C/o. Eswaran, Venkateswara Constructions, Thiruchengode.
7. T.Selvam No.3/11, Pokkampalayam, Kumaramangalam Post, Thiruchengode.
8. Kanthasamy Former Inspector of Police Thiruchengode P.S, Currently Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Alcohol Prohibition Wing, Villupuram District ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to set aside the return docket order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode in Crl.M.P.Sr.No.1755 of 2025, pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Umar Mohamed
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to set aside the return docket order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode in Crl.M.P.Sr.No.1755 of 2025.
2.The petitioner filed a private complaint against eight persons for offences under Sections 198, 199 & 351 (2) of BNS. The trial Court received the complaint on 29.09.2025. Thereafter, it was returned on 06.102025 with an
endorsement that the 8th respondent shown in the private complaint is a police personnel and without obtaining sanction, complaint filed, hence returned. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not even heard or given an opportunity to explain why the prior sanction in this case is not required. He further submitted that the 8th respondent though a police personnel, he had not committed the offence, while discharging his official duty and hence, prior sanction is not required. He has got several judgements to show that prior sanction is required only if the act has been committed during discharge of official duty and not otherwise. There are sufficient averments and documents annexed with the complaint to confirm the same, this would be explained only when the petition is heard. 4.
Considering the above submissions, and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that returning the complaint without hearing the petitioner is not proper. Hence, the return is set aside. The petitioner is directed to represent the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode, to hear the case of the petitioner and give an opportunity to the petitioner and peruse the materials placed on record and thereafter, pass appropriate order on merits.
5.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is allowed. 19-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms Note: Registry is directed to return the original return docket order dated 06.10.2025.
To The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms 19-06-2026