Dharmaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 1886 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.1398 of 2024

1. Dharmaraj,

2. Venkadesh,

3. Yamuna,

4. Narmatha,

5. Sundharavadivel.

... Petitioners Vs

1. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Madukkur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

Crime No. 125 of 2019.

2. Vedhaiyan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 125 of 1/5

2019 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For petitioners : Mr. P.Surliraja For respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 *****

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash FIR in Crime No. 125 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 379 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

2. The allegations in the FIR are that when the second respondent was filling up the land with sand, the petitioners objected to the same and attacked the second respondent and his wife besides abusing them in filthy language.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 06.08.2019, the FIR was registered only 2/5

on 08.08.2019 and that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners; and that the allegations are false.

4. The points raised by the petitioners are factual in nature. This Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot hold that the allegations in the FIR are false. It is for the Investigating Agency to conduct an investigation and ascertain the truth.

5. It is well settled that delay in registering the FIR alone would not be a ground for quashing the FIR. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. However, the first respondent shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner and file a final report as expeditiously as possible.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the final report is filed, it would be barred by limitation.

7. This Court cannot assume at this stage as to what offence would be alleged in the Final Report. It is needless to say that the petitioners can always 3/5

challenge the Final Report, if any, filed if it is barred by limitation.

8. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 03.09.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The Inspector of Police, Madukkur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 4/5

SUNDER MOHAN , J.

apd Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1886 of 2024 03.09.2025 5/5