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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl.M.P.No.10533 of 2026

1. P.Shiyal

2. Mirudula

3. Shidya .. Petitioners

Versus

1. State rep by the Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai - 600 019.

2. A.P.Monicka .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in Cr.No.872 of 2025, dated 06.07.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mrs.Thenamirtha Shyamala For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Ms.Monicka, for R2 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.872 of 2025, dated 06.07.2025.

2. The crux of the allegations made in the First Information Report is that the bridegroom falsely represented himself to be well employed and also made the second respondent/de facto complainant spend a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- on various expenses relating to betrothal. Upon finding the truth, when the further ceremonies are cancelled, the money is not paid back. It is the averment that with a willful intention to cheat the second respondent/de facto complainant, the misrepresentations were made and they were put loss.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire case is an abuse of process of law. The F.I.R itself was registered without properly conducting a preliminary enquiry. The entire issue is with reference to arranging of a marriage and after betrothal, since both sides were not interested, the same was cancelled. The same does not amount to any criminal offence whatsoever. For betrothal, everybody has spent and even the version of the second respondent/de facto complainant 2/5

is different before the Court and in the complaint.

4. The learned Counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant is also present.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material records of the case.

6. I am of the view that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are factual in nature, which should be taken care of by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the first respondent submit that they will consider each and every issue including all the defenses raised by the petitioners during the course of investigation and the investigation will be completed and a Final Report will be filed in accordance with law, if two months time is granted.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, considering the nature of defences made on behalf of the petitioners, since it is in the nature of factual defence, the petitioners will be entitled to bring to the notice of the 3/5

Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer should dispassionately consider all the submissions made by the petitioners also and come to a conclusion and file a Final Report in the manner known to law within a period of two months.

8. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.06.2026 : no grs To

1. The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai - 600 019.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs and Crl.M.P.No.10533 of 2026 29.06.2026 5/5