Suresh v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.23281 of 2025 Suresh
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Gobinathampatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
(Cr.No.73 of 2025)
2. Perumal
...Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for records in Crime No.73 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent, quash the same by allowing this criminal original petition. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
ORDER
This criminal original petition is filed seeking to quash the case in Crime No.73 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent / police. 1/6
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is employed as Special Sub Inspector of Police at Gopinathampatti Police Station. On 26.05.2025, at about 12:00 noon., while he was on duty, one Suresh (petitioner) came to the station stating that he wanted to meet the Inspector of Police. When the de facto complainant inquired about the purpose of his visit, the petitioner stated that he was a military man holding the rank of DSP and that the de facto complainant was not the competent authority to question him. Subsequently, the de facto complainant informed the petitioner that the Inspector would be available at 4:00 pm. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to the police station at about 4:20 p.m. in an inebriated condition and abused the Constables, asserting that he was a military officer and that they were not competent to enquire into any complaint. When the Inspector arrived at the station, the petitioner shouted at her stating that she was not an Inspector. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the complaint has been lodged by the second respondent, however, the 2/6
investigation has been carried out by the first respondent without obtaining any permission which would amount to an abuse of process of law particularly when the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence on their face. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents submits that the investigation is being proceeded by the Inspector of Police, who is the competent authority. It is further submitted that, since the petitioner was creating ruckus in the police station and obstructed the officials from discharging their duties, there is no requirement to obtain any permission from the petitioner either for registering the FIR or for conducting the investigation.
5. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is discernible from the records that the investigation is proceeding in the normal course. It is also placed on record by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that though the FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector 3/6
of Police, Gopinathampatti, the investigation is being carried out by the Inspector of Police who is the competent authority to conduct the same.
7. In the light of the said submission, this Court finds that there is no legal requirement for the Investigating Officer to obtain any permission from the petitioner for carrying out the investigation. Hence, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is without any basis. However, the first respondent is directed to file a final report as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from today (i.e.,08.12.2025).
8. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.12.2025 rap Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No 4/6
To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Gobinathampatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
5/6
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
rap 08.12.2025 6/6