Thangaraja v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Silaiman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :27.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR CRL.O.P(MD)No.6135 of 2026 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.6650 of 2026 Thangaraja ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 .Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District, (In Crime No.52 of 2022) ...Ist Respondent/Complainant 2.Prabhu ...
...IInd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying this Court to call for the records bearing Crime No.52 of 2022, on the file of first respondent Police and to quash the same as against the Petitioner alone. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) 1/5
O R D E R
The present Petition has been filed by the first accused in crime No.52 of 2022, on the file of first respondent-Police seeking to quash the FIR, wherein, the Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 147,447,294(b),323, 427 and 506(i) of IPC.
2.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as far as the alleged offence in the FIR is concerned, maximum punishment to be imposed is only two years for the offence under Sections 147, 427 and 506(i) IPC. Though the FIR has been registered on 9.2.2022, charge-sheet has not yet been filed so far. The learned counsel relied on Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C and contended that the cognizance is barred by limitation and the investigating agency cannot file the charge sheet 3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that so far charge sheet has not yet been laid in the concerned FIR.
4.Considering the above facts, it is clear that Section 147 IPC attracts 2 years punishment, Section 447 IPC attracts three 2/5
months punishment, section 294(b) IPC attracts six months punishment, Section 323 IPC attracts 1 year punishment, Section 427 IPC attracts 2 years punishment and section 506(i) IPC attracts 2 years punishment.Therefore, it is clear that all the offence levelled against the Petitioner attract maximum punishment of only for 2 years. Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C., states that no Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of three years of limitation period in case, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years period, from the date of occurrence. 5.Admittedly, in the present case, FIR has been registered on 9.2.2022 and even after expiry of four years period, charge sheet has not been laid. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and the FIR is liable to be quashed.
6.Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.52 of 2022, on the file of first respondent Police stands quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.03.2026 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No 3/5
Internet : Yes / No vsn To The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District, (In Crime No.52 of 2022) Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR.,J.
vsn ORDER MADE IN 4/5
CRL.O.P(MD)No.6135 of 2026 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.6650 of 2026 27.03.2026 5/5