B.Mubarak Begum v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P.No.35141 of 2025

1. B.Mubarak Begum W/o.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, No.128, Shanthi Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai-600 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Team IV, CCB, Tambaram, Chennai Respondent(s) PRAYER To direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram to furnish the certified copies of the (i) FIR in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, Team IV, CCB, Tambaram and (ii) Order passed refusing to remand the Accused by the JM-1, Tambaram on 13.11.2025 in Copy Application No.779 of 2025 dated 18.11.2025 on the file of Learned J-1, Tambaram. For Petitioner:

Mr.R.P.Rajkumar Alagesh For Respondent :

Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the

Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram to furnish the certified copies of the (i) FIR in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, Team IV, CCB, Tambaram and Order passed refusing to remand the Accused by the JM-1, Tambaram on 13.11.2025 in Copy Application No.779 of 2025 dated 18.11.2025 on the file of Learned JM-1, Tambaram. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the de facto complainant. Based on the complaint given by her in respect of creation of fabricated documents and forgery, a case in Crime No.36 of 2025 was registered on 12.11.2025 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The respondent police, after verifying the veracity of the complaint and also perusing the documents, had arrested the accused on 13.11.

2025 and had produced him for remand. Whereas, the learned Magistrate had refused to accept the remand. The petitioner being an affected party is entitled to know the reason for rejection of remand despite materials available for arrest and remand of the accused. Hence, the petitioner had filed an application seeking copies of F.I.R in Crime No.36 of 2025, and order passed in remand report on 13.11.2025. The Copy Application taken up in C.A.No.779 of 2025 was returned on 19.11.2025, directing the petitioner to file a third party affidavit. The petitioner had complied with the return and filed an affidavit on 21.11.2025, whereas the learned Magistrate, without complying with the same, had been adjourning it repeatedly without passing any orders.

that the matter is between the Court and the party, whereas, the learned Magistrate had directed the respondent police to give a reply which is not warranted. He would submit that as per Rule 209 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, the petitioner being an affected party and the de facto complainant, is entitled to furnishing of the F.I.R. in Crime No.36 of 2025 and the order rejecting remand to enable her to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

3.Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the materials placed on record.

4.The petitioner being the de facto complainant and a victim, is entitled to copies of F.I.R. and the order of rejection of remand. The learned Magistrate is bound to give a copy of the same. From the records, it is seen that the Magistrate has been unnecessarily adjourning the matter without issuing the copies.

5.In view of the above, learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the copy application filed in C.A.No.779 of 2025 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

kas 6.This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 02-01-2026 kas Index:Yes/No To 1.The Inspector of Police Team IV, CCB, Tambaram Chennai 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104