Anees v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Through The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.858 of 2026 Anees ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, represented by The Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police station, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

2. Shama Parveen ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in Cr.No.540 of 2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.H.Syed Alim For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.J.Srinivasan for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.540 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.2025, at around 2.30 p.m., the accused allegedly came to the residence of the de facto complainant, verbally abused her using filthy language, assaulted her by throwing a water bottle and also recorded a video of hers in an improper manner. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no material evidence to substantiate the allegations and that the de facto complainant has not sustained any injury. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner and that there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Hence, he seeks to quash the first information report. 4.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the de facto complainant, who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner, has lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner verbally abused her and assaulted her with a water bottle, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken a video of hers in an improper manner. He also submitted that the case has been registered only recently on 31.10.2025 and that the investigation is at a nascent stage.

5.

The learned counsel for the second respondent/ de facto complainant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.05.2025 and that the complaint was presented to the first respondent immediately. However, without registering an FIR, the first respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry by registering a CSR and upon being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, subsequently registered the FIR. He further submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage and that the de facto complainant cannot be faulted for the delay, if any, in the registration of the case and commencement of investigation by the police. He also submitted that the investigation has commenced only on 31.10.2025 and therefore, opposed the prayer seeking quashment of the proceedings.

6.

The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matters which require a through investigation. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent also submitted that the investigation is at its nascent stage. Ergo, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this juncture.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 27-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vkr To 1.The Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police station, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vkr 27-01-2026