Madras High CourtCRL OP/14925/2026disposed of

Saraswathi v. The State Rep By

2026-06-12Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar13 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Saraswathi, S/o.Selvaraj, No.11/17, 1st Street, Sattakkalpudur, Sokkanur, Coimbatore District.

... Petitioner vs.

The State Rep By 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore North City, Coimbatore District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District, Crime No.174 of 2026.

3.Ramsait, S/o.Ramachandran, No.2, Devi Illam, Priya Nagar, Telungupalayam, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District.

... Respondents Page No.1 of 13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge under SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Coimbatore District to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner on her surrender in connection with Crime No.174 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police on the same day.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Amarnath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R3 : Mr.A.Tamilarasan

ORDER

Today the matter was listed under the caption "For Clarification". 2.In paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the order dated 12.06.2026, this Court recorded as follows:

"3.The learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu would submit that the case has been registered on 17.05.2026. The allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting a thorough investigation. At this stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into. The petitioner has raised several disputed questions of fact, Page No.2 of 13

which can be examined only during the course of investigation. Therefore, he seeks time to complete the investigation and prays for dismissal of the quash petition as premature.

4.Considering the rival submissions and on a perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the FIR discloses specific allegations as against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have business dealings and in due course of the business dealing, cases both in the Civil Court and the proceedings under the NI Act are pending. The contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which require investigation. The grounds raised by the petitioner are matters of defence, which can be established during the course of investigation or at the appropriate stage before the competent Court.

5.In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the present Criminal Original Petition and the petitioner is directed to raise all her objections before the concerned Court, at the time of considering her bail petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. "

Page No.3 of 13

3.Now the following clarification is given:

4.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant strongly opposed the petitioner's contention and submitted that the petitioner abused and threatened the 3rd respondent calling her caste name.

5.Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the FIR discloses specific allegations as against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have business dealings and in due course of the business dealing, cases both in the Civil Court and the proceedings under the NI Act are pending. The contention of the petitioner and objection of the respondent/defacto complainant to be raised before the Special Court when the bail petitioner is considered.

Page No.4 of 13

6.In view of the amendments made in the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court is of the view that the usual directions that were issued by this Court cannot be issued routinely in all cases. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, of course after commencement of normal functioning of the Court, which ever is later and on such surrender, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge under SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Coimbatore, shall deal with the matter on the same day on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the victims under Section 15-A

(3) of the SC/ST Act. In view of the same, the Special Court is directed to consider the bail application at the earliest. 7.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs."

4.The matter is clarified accordingly. Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy.

19.06.2026 vv2 Page No.5 of 13

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2 To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge under SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Coimbatore.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore North City, Coimbatore District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District, 4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

19.06.2026 Page No.6 of 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 Saraswathi S/o.Selvaraj, No.11/17, 1st street, Sattakkalpudur, Sokkanur, Coimbatore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Race Course Circle, Coimbatore District.

2. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.Crime No. 174 of 2026.

3. Ramsait S/o.Ramachandran, No.2, Devi illam, Priya Nagar, Telungupalayam, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Page No.7 of 13

Coimbatore (Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases) to consider the petitioner's bail application to be filed on the same day on his surrender in crime No.174 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the 2nd respondent and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Amarnath Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side) for R1 And R2 Mr.A.Tamilarasan for R3

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were having business dealing. Petitioner used to purchase egg from the defacto complainant and there was some misunderstanding between them, for which the defacto complainant had filed the complaint and also lodged a civil suit as against the petitioner and others. The said suit is pending before the concerned court. This being the situation, the defacto complainant has falsely projected as if the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant when the defacto complainant was going to his advocate's office, abused and Page No.8 of 13

threatened him.

2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent strongly objected the petitioner's contentions. He would submit that the defacto complainant is doing egg business. Through Rajendran and Krishnaveni, the petitioner came into contact with the defacto complainant and started buying eggs from him. For the said business, the defacto complainant used to enter into an agreement with the persons who are receiving eggs from him. As per which, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs to the defacto complainant. When the said amount was demanded by the defacto complainant, the petitioner refused to pay the same. Therefore, the defacto complainant has instituted a suit as well as the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

While being so, when the defacto complainant was on the way to his advocate's office, the petitioner attacked him, abused and threatened him. The said action of the petitioner was witnessed by one Sanjay and Arulraj. Hence the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent - Police and the same was registered in Crime No.174 of 2026 for the offences under Section 296 (b), 351 (2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) Page No.

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu would submit that the case has been registered on 17.05.2026. The allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting a thorough investigation. At this stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into. The petitioner has raised several disputed questions of fact, which can be examined only during the course of investigation. Therefore, he seeks time to complete the investigation and prays for dismissal of the quash petition as premature.

the NI Act are pending. The contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which require investigation. The grounds raised by the petitioner are matters of defence, which can be established during the course of investigation or at the appropriate stage before the competent Court.

5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the present Criminal Original Petition and the petitioner is directed to raise all her objections before the concerned Court, at the time of considering her bail petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jer To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Page No.11 of 13

Race Course Circle, Coimbatore District.

2. The Inspector of Police Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Crime No. 174 of 2026.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

Page No.12 of 13

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Jer CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 12-06-2026 Page No.13 of 13