Ramesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.20073 of 2025 Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Inspector of Police-Uddanapalli (Crime No.258 of 2020) 2.Bhagya ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in S.C.No.23 of 2023 before the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner/Accused No.7.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murughesh for M/s.Ram Gokul Advocate and Asso.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate(Crl Side) 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in S.C.No.23 of 2023 before the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner/Accused No.7.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-7 in S.C.No.23 of 2023 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 120B, 149, 114, 109 and 201 of IPC. He would submit that the only material as against the petitioner is the statement of one Anilkumar, L.W.15, wherein it is stated that the petitioner, on the date of occurrence, was found to make phone call to somebody stating that Muniraj and his son Santhosh were returning in the two wheeler and thereafter, the petitioner is said to have made another phone call and told to switch off the street lights and except this, there is absolutely no material. The main dispute is between the deceased Muniraj and one Venkatraj for a period of two years in respect of stone quarry and regarding this, there were panchayats held. 2/5

The witness Anilkumar who knows both Muniraj and Venkatraj family falsely implicated the petitioner in respect of the occurrence taken place on 13.05.2020. Though the witness Anilkumar has given his statement implicating the petitioner that he was found speaking to somebody over phone, no other Call Detail Records have been collected by the respondent police. Further, the said Anilkumar except stating that the petitioner had spoken with someone over phone, he has not given any other specific details about the occurrence which took place on that broad daylight.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that L.W.15 Anil kumar had stated that the petitioner was found to be speaking to somebody in the 1st call and informed that Muniraj and his son Santhoshkumar are returning in the two wheeler and further in the 2nd call, told to put off the street lights.

4. Heard both sides and I have gone through the records.

5. There is statement of L.W.15 implicating the petitioner. The truth, falsity and the veracity of the statement given by L.W.15 can be tested only in the course of trial. In such circumstances, this court does not find any 3/5

ground to quash the proceedings ab initio.

6. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition for quash stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to raise all the grounds before the trial court during the course of trial. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.10.2025 nvsri To

1. The Inspector of Police-Uddanapalli (Crime No.258 of 2020)

2. The learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, 3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

nvsri 30.10.2025 5/5