Shanmugam v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA in Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025 Shanmugam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai North.

(Crime No.47 of 2025) Aadhav Arjuna ... Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 528 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to re-call the order dated 21.11.2025 made in Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025 so as to enable this petitioner/de facto complainant to be heard on merits.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Natarajan For R1 : Ms.R.S.Indira Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu For R2 : Mr.Pranav Gopalakrishnan 1/4

O R D E R

This recall petition is listed today under the caption "for withdrawal".

Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed to recall the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court allowing Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025 filed for quashment of the FIR registered against the petitioner therein pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner herein who was the second respondent/de facto complainant in the said quash petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the recall petition.

3.

In view of the above submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this recall petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

While parting, this Court hastens to observe that while allowing Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025, this Court was fully cognizant of the 2/4

fact that notice was not ordered to the petitioner herein in the quash petition and in fact, a separate paragraph was dedicated (paragraph no.19 to be precise) in the order dated 21.11.2025 categorically stating the reason as to why this Court proceeded to decide the quash petition even without ordering notice to the second respondent/de facto complainant. The said paragraph is reproduced below for ready reference:

"19. It is also equally not out of place to point out, at this juncture, that since the first respondent/police has been represented by Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel, who, in his usual style, countered the petitioner's case and justified the action of the first respondent police in registering the impugned FIR in extenso, this Court feels that ordering notice to the second respondent/de facto complainant may not be necessary."

24.06.2026 ham To 1.

The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai North.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

ham in Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025 24.06.2026 4/4