Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 under Sections 528 of BNSS, since due to previous enmity between the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Udhagamandalam and his spouse, who is working as Subordinate Judge, Ooty, Judicial Officers of Ooty, with their influence, a false case has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 is hereby quashed and accordingly quashed. 9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms To 1. The Inspector of Police, T-3 Ooty Town West Police Station, Nilgiris District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. P.VELMURUGAN, J ms Crl.O.P.No.21695 of 2025 04.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.No. 21695 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.14845 of 2025
P.Saravanan … Petitioner Vs.
1. The State Represented by
Inspector of Police,
T-3 Ooty Town West Police Station,
Nilgiris District,
Crime No.44 of 2025.
2. M.Ranjith Kumar … Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent-Police quash the same by allowing the Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar
For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.44 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent-Police.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondentPolice and perused the materials available on record.
3. Since no adverse order is being passed as against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent herein/de-facto complainant is working as Office Assistant in the Labour Court, Udhagamandalam. On 24.04.2025, when the petitioner herein is trying to park the car bearing Registration No. TN 56 R 3296 in the Court campus without permission, the second respondent/de-facto complainant had questioned the same and made objections to park the vehicle in the Court campus. The petitioner abused him and also left the car in the mid-way, due to which, the vehicles of District Judges and other Government Departments could not have crossed, resulting in traffic Jam. Hence, the second respondent addressed a complaint to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Udhagamandalam, who in turn, forwarded the complaint to the first respondent-Police. Pursuant to the complaint, the first respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2025 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(3) and 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Sub-Treasury Officer / Superintendent in the District Treasury, Udhagamandalam, and the said office is located inside the
District Collector’s office campus, consisting of several Government Departments, besides the Labour Court. Even before migration of Court buildings, the petitioner has been parking his car for long without any quarrel and the said campus is having adequate capacity for parking the vehicles. Learned counsel further submitted that parking of the vehicle in the said campus is not a real issue to lodge the complaint against the petitioner. When the petitioner was discharging his duties as Sub- Treasury Officer, Ooty, he has rejected the objectionable bills/claims submitted by the Judicial Officers in Ooty. However, all the rejected bills/claims were re-presented and encashed coercively, when the petitioner was on leave. After having been acquainted about the passing of wrong claims, the petitioner lodged a complaint before this Court on
10.03.2025. Subsequently, as per the directions of the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court, the petitioner had filed a detailed affidavit along with the documents including the specific instances of the illegal and suspicious claims of the Judicial Officers with their names, in which, the name of the spouse (who is working as Subordinate Judge, Ooty) of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ooty, has been mentioned. Hence, in order to take wreak vengeance, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Udhagamandalam and his spouse, who is working as Subordinate Judge, Ooty, with the influence of the Office Assistant, had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the prosecution does not attract the ingredients to prosecute the case under Sections 296(b), 329(3) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. Prima facie, there are no iota of materials available against the petitioner to register the FIR for the alleged offences. Therefore, FIR may be quashed.
7. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent-Police, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner, without prior permission, parked the vehicle in the Court campus and when the second respondent herein requested the petitioner to remove the vehicle, the petitioner scolded the second respondent/de-facto complainant in filthy language and also obstructed the public servants to do their official duty.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 under Sections 528 of BNSS, since due to previous enmity between the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Udhagamandalam and his spouse, who is working as Subordinate Judge, Ooty, Judicial Officers of Ooty, with their influence, a false case has been registered
against the petitioner. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 is hereby quashed and accordingly quashed.
9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.08.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
T-3 Ooty Town West Police Station, Nilgiris District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.VELMURUGAN, J ms
Crl.O.P.No.21695 of 2025
04.08.2025