HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7440 of 2025 in Crl.MP(MD) Nos.5448 and 5450 of 2025 Jeyakarna … Petitioner/ 5th Accused Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No.498/2022. …. Respondent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7440 of 2025 in
Crl.MP(MD) Nos.5448 and 5450 of 2025
Jeyakarna
… Petitioner/ 5th Accused Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.498/2022.
…. Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to quash the impunged charge sheet filed by the respondent with respect to this petitioner in C.C. No. 2402 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI at Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam For M.S.Sheik Abdullah
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the charge sheet in C.C.No.2402 of 2022, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The case on hand presents a classic instance where the Court is called upon to balance the sanctity of criminal prosecution with the constitutional mandate to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner seeks to demonstrate that his implication is not merely unwarranted but fundamentally untenable in law and on facts.
Case of the prosecution:
3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the First Information Report and the final report, is that on 13.08.2022, at about 11.30 a.m., the mortal remains of a deceased army soldier, who had lost his life in a terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir, were brought to Madurai Airport for public homage.
4. It is alleged that several persons, including political party members, gathered at the airport premises to pay their respects. At the same time, the Honourable Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu, Thiru. Palanivel Thiagarajan, also arrived with his security personnel.
5. According to the prosecution, in order to maintain law and order, the police segregated the groups and directed them through separate routes. It is alleged that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, obstructed the movement of the Honourable Minister’s vehicle, damaged the vehicle, attempted to assault him, abused the police personnel, and prevented them from discharging their official duties. It is further alleged that two of the accused threw slippers at the vehicle bearing the National Flag, thereby insulting the same.
6. Based on the above allegations, a charge sheet came to be filed against 32 accused persons, including the petitioner, who is arrayed as 5th accused, for offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 352, 353, 506(ii) read with 149 IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1989.
Case of the petitioner:
7. The case of the petitioner is that he is a reputed businessman and had visited Madurai Airport only to pay homage to the deceased soldier. According to the petitioner, he arrived at the airport only at about 12.30 p.m., which is one hour after the alleged occurrence at 11.30 a.m., and therefore, it is factually impossible for him to have participated in the alleged incident.
8. It is further contended that the petitioner paid his respects and immediately left the premises, which is corroborated by CCTV footage and other public records. The petitioner would submit that he was subsequently intercepted by the police, called for enquiry, and despite his cooperation, he was falsely implicated and remanded to judicial custody. The core contention of the petitioner is that his implication is mala fide, politically motivated, and unsupported by any legally admissible evidence.
Grounds for quash:
9. The petitioner has raised multiple grounds, the essence of which can be summarised as follows:
(i) The allegations in the charge sheet, even if taken at face value, do not make out any offence against the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time, as evidenced by unimpeachable materials such as CCTV footage.
(iii) The prosecution has failed to establish any overt act attributable to the petitioner.
(iv) The case falls squarely within the parameters laid down in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, warranting quashment.
(v) The prosecution is vitiated by mala fides and has been initiated with an ulterior motive.
(vi) The statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973, is attracted insofar as certain offences are concerned.
(vii) The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.

1 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
Arguments on either side:
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the present petition is maintainable
notwithstanding the earlier quash petition, in view of the change in law as recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab .
11. He would further contend that the materials relied upon by the petitioner, being unimpeachable and of sterling quality, clearly establish that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence.
12. Placing reliance on Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebahlata Koley and Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs state of Bihar , it is contended that this Court can look into such materials at the stage of quash. It is further argued that the absence of a complaint as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. renders the cognizance itself bad in law.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the otherhand, would submit that the petitioner has suppressed material facts regarding the earlier quash petition and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is further contended that the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to all offences and that the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting trial.
14. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
Point for consideration:
15. The primary point that arises for consideration is whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2402 of 2022 would amount to abuse of process of Court, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?
Analysis:
16. At the outset, this Court is mindful of the well-settled principle that the power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the continuation of proceedings would result in manifest injustice.
17. In the present case, the substratum of the prosecution case is that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly that obstructed and attacked the Honourable Minister at about 11.30 a.m. However, the petitioner has placed reliance on materials which, prima facie, appear to be unimpeachable in nature, indicating that he was present at the airport only at 12.30 p.m., i.e., after the alleged occurrence.
18. The law is well settled that where the materials relied upon by the accused are of sterling and incontrovertible character, the Court would be justified in looking into the same at the stage of quash, as held in Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebahlata Koley and Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs state of Bihar .
19. If the presence of the petitioner at the scene of occurrenceitself is rendered doubtful by unimpeachable evidence, the very foundation of the prosecution case against him collapses.
20. Further, a careful perusal of the charge sheet does not disclose any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. The implication appears to be by way of general and omnibus allegations under Section 149 IPC. It is trite that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, without proof of common object or participation, is insufficient to sustain prosecution.
21. The contention regarding the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973, also merits consideration. Though the said bar may not apply to all offences, it certainly casts a shadow on the legality of cognizance insofar as offences relating to obstruction of public servants are concerned.
22. More importantly, the materials on record indicate inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including non-implication of persons allegedly identified as instigators, thereby raising serious doubts about the fairness of investigation.
23. The present case, in the considered view of this Court, falls within categories (1), (3) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal7, namely:
i. Absence of prima facie case; ii. Lack of material to support allegations; and iii. Proceedings instituted with mala fide intent.
24. Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would not only result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner but would also amount to a misuse of the criminal justice machinery. Criminal law cannot be allowed to be used as a tool of oppression or as a means to settle scores under the guise of prosecution.
25. The facts of the present case reveal a disturbing tendency to implicate individuals without adequate material, thereby diluting the sanctity of criminal proceedings. The majesty of criminal law lies

7 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
not in its severity, but in its fairness. The Courts are duty-bound to ensure that innocent persons are not dragged into protracted trials on the basis of unfounded allegations.
26. When unimpeachable materials clearly demonstrate the improbability of the allegations, the Court would be failing in its duty if it relegates the accused to undergo the ordeal of trial.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Original
Petition stands allowed.
28. The charge sheet in C.C.No.2402 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29. In light of the quashment of proceedings, the prayer for dispensing with personal appearance and for interim stay does not survive.
21.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.7440 of 2025
21.04.2026