Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18282/2025disposed of

P.Sahadevan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Paramakudi Town

2025-10-27Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18282 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD) No. 15007 of 2025 P.Sahadevan ... Petitioner / Accused No. 1 Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.239/2025).

...1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.R.Santhi ...2nd Respondent/ Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.239 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioner : R.Manickam Advocate For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.239 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.

2. The allegation in the impugned FIR is that on account of prior enmity, the petitioner and others had attacked the defacto complainant by pulling her hair and pushing her down and thereafter, stamping her with their feet and abused her in filthy language and committed the offence of criminal intimidation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner are false; that in fact, the petitioner had produced the CCTV footage before the first respondent to show that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence, the petitioner was let out on bail by the first respondent and hence, he prays for quashing the impugned FIR.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the allegation made against the petitioner disclose a cognizable offence; and that since the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are factual in nature, it cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition.

5. This Court is of the view that the question, as to whether the petitioner was present at the scene occurrence and whether the CCTV footages produced by the petitioner has to be accepted, cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce the said CCTV footages to the first respondent. The first respondent shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner and file a final report in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction and liberty, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27.10.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu 3/5

To 1.The InSpector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Indu Crl.O.P(MD).No.18282 of 2025 27.10.2025 5/5