Palveer sing order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL MP(MD) NOs. 18007, 18009, 18010 and 18011 of 2025 in CRL RC(MD) NO. 1427, 1428, 1429 and 1430 of 2025 Balveer Singh, S/o.Dham Singh Meena Assistant Commandant, VIII Battalion Tamil Nadu Special Police, New Delhi Petitioner in all Crl.MPs/ Revision Petitioner in all Crl.RCs Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli Respondent in all Crl.MPs and Crl.RCs

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL MP(MD) NOs. 18007, 18009, 18010 and 18011 of 2025 in CRL RC(MD) NO. 1427, 1428, 1429 and 1430 of 2025
Balveer Singh, S/o.Dham Singh Meena
Assistant Commandant, VIII Battalion
Tamil Nadu Special Police, New Delhi
Petitioner in all Crl.MPs/ Revision Petitioner in all Crl.RCs Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
rep by The Additional Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Tirunelveli Respondent in all Crl.MPs and
Crl.RCs
Prayer: The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to pass interim orders, to stay the effect and operation of the impugned orders, dated 15.09.2025, passed in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, respectively, by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and all further consequential proceedings of the cases in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
Prayer: These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed, by the Revision
Petitioner, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against the impugned orders, dated 15.09.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No1, Tirunelveli, in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, framing charges against the Revision Petitioner, respectively.
For Revision Petitioner: Mr.M.Ravi, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.D.Selvanayagam,
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and
Mr.M.Karunanithi,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
1. This Court Heard Mr.M.Ravi, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr.D.Selvanayagam, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and
Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent.
2. The above Criminal Revision Cases have been filed, by the Revision
Petitioner, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against the impugned orders, dated
15.09.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No1, Tirunelveli, in
CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, framing charges against the Revision Petitioner, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to pass interim orders, to stay the effect and operation of the impugned orders, dated 15.09.2025, passed in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, respectively, by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and all further consequential proceedings of the cases in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Revision Petitioner was appointed in the Indian Police Service (IPS) in the year 2020 and he had been allocated for service in the State of
Tamil Nadu. The Revision Petitioner served in the capacity of the
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Training, in Ramanathapuram District in the year 2022. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner was posted on regular basis as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram Sub Division, in Tirunelveli District, with effect from 18.10.2022. The Revision Petitioner was having charge over 6 police stations, viz.
(i) Ambasamudram (ii) Ambasamudram All women Police Station,
(iii) V.K. Puram, (iv) Kallidaikurichi, (v) Pappakudi and
(vi) Manimuthar. Apart from the above charges, the Revision Petitioner had the charge over the entire Mancholai Forest Area manned by a police outpost. During the said period, when the Revision Petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram Sub Division, he had put in unblemished service. The Revision Petitioner had also earned Certificates of Appreciation from the Director General of Police for nabbing the accused, indulged in peddling Narcotics substances and seizing approximately 122 Kilo of Ganja in December, 2022 from the said drug peddlers. The Revision Petitioner had good reputation for his integrity and honesty.
5. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
that the Revision Petitioner was holding charge over the Ambasamudram Sub-Division extending over 408 Sq. Kilometres and the Revision Petitioner had back-to-back law and order issues to be dealt with and was always under alert for combating with the people having criminal antecedents. The Sub-Division, over which the Revision Petitioner had the charge for the law enforcement, was highly prone to animosities between different sections of the society on caste lines. The said Ambasamudram sub division was having the constant problems for the police in handling the drug peddlers, who have been indulging in transporting Ganja from outside the State and making the youth and students addict to the said substance. The Government of Tamil Nadu was very keen on taking zero tolerance action on the peddlers of Narcotics substances. The senior police officers had repeated periodic meetings and conferences to enforce law strictly against the drug peddlers, with an object to achieve Narcotic free state status for Tamil Nadu.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that since numerous complaints from the public were received with grievance about the rowdies and anti-social elements indulging in criminal acts affecting the general public, the Revision Petitioner had to take stern action against persons with criminal antecedents to safeguard the public from such elements. The anti-social elements operating within the sub-division of Ambasamudram can be classified as (i) Ganja Peddlers (ii) Extortionists (iii) Usurious Money Lenders and (iv) those indulging in criminal activities under the cover of communal identities and caste affiliations. In the month of March 2023, the Revision Petitioner had the information that gangs operating in and around Ambasamudram were involved in gang rivalry that existed between the said gangs. Since the Revision Petitioner was a thorn in the flesh of the anti-socials and the vested interests, who found the Revision Petitioner
as an obstacle to their criminal activities, they started levelling false allegations against the Revision Petitioner and were spreading canards with baseless allegations. In tune with the meticulous planning devised by such elements, a fabricated complaint was given against the Revision Petitioner which resulted in the registration of a case by the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District in Crime No.1 of 2023, dated
17.04.2023, on the said fabricated complaint lodged by one Subash,
S/o.Esakki having residences at Kallidaikurichi and KTC Nagar at Palayamkottai, who has been a member of one of the above said gangs, indulging in various criminal activities. Since a nefarious media propaganda was organised against the Revision Petitioner on behalf of the above said vested interests and criminals, the case registered against the Revision Petitioner by the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District on 17.04.2023 was transferred to the Crime Branch CB-CID on 21.04.2023 in Crime No.3 of 2023 only on baseless allegations with an intention to falsely implicate the Revision Petitioner at the instance of the criminals operating in that area.
7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the case in the above Crime No. 3 of 2023 has been the outcome of the well-orchestrated plan to remove the Revision Petitioner from his position as the top official of Ambasamudram Police Sub-Division. Having tasted blood, the above said anti-social elements gathered persons against whom cases were registered in the Ambasamudram subdivision and made successive false complaints against the Revision Petitioner to the CB-CID resulting in the registration of additional cases in Crime Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023, 01.05.2023 and 06.05.2023, respectively without any material, only with the intention to rope him in the false and fabricated case. After the alleged investigation, the respondent prosecution filed the final reports dated 21.11.2023, 21.12.2023, 23.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, in the above cases, on totally false allegations without considering the entire evidence on record, leading to the cases in CC.No.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023.
8. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that events leading to the case in CC.No.2419 of 2023 are that the information was received in the Ambasamudram Police Station on 10.03.2023 that two rival gangs have been indulging in fighting with lethal weapons like Aruval since 07.03.2023 in and around different police jurisdiction falling within the Ambasamudram Police Sub
Division. Immediately the police personnel attached to the Ambasamudram and V.K. Puram police limits swung into action and apprehended 10 persons belonging to the said two gangs, including two juveniles. The said apprehended persons were brought to the said Ambasamudram and V.K. Puram police stations, for enquiries in the FIR and counter FIR filed by the members of the said gangs against the other. A FIR was registered in the Ambasamudram Police Station in Cr.No.49/2023 dated 10.03.2023 on the complaint of one Ganesh, against the members of the gang led by one Chellappa. Similarly another FIR was registered in V.K. Puram Police Station in Cr.No. 65/2023 dated 10.03.2023 on the complaint of one Subash, against the members of the gang led Arunkumar. All the 10 apprehended persons including the two juveniles were entrusted to judicial custody with the appropriate custody authorities and none of the said remanded persons complained of any torture to the Magistrate.
9. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that events leading to the case in CC.No.2420 of 2023 are that one A.Vetha Narayanan, was found indulging in public nuisance addressing the public in abusive and filthy manner in the morning on 23.03.2023, during regular rounds by the police personnel attached to V.K.Puram
Police Station in Ambasamudram Sub Division. Since A.Vetha Narayanan continued with his nuisance ignoring the instructions of the police party he was taken into custody and a case in FIR No.74 of 2023, dated 23.03.2023 was registered on the complaint by the Sub Inspector of Police S.Murugesh of the said Police Station.
10.It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that events leading to the case in CC.No.2431 of 2023 are that one Surya was found indulging in public nuisance addressing the public in abusive and filthy manner on 20.03.2023. The said act of nuisance by the above said Surya came to the notice of the police party who were on patrol duty. As he continued with his nuisance ignoring the instructions of the police party, he was taken into custody and a case in FIR No.66 of 2023, dated 20.03.2023 was registered against him.
11.It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that events leading to the case in CC.No.2481 of 2023 are that on 22.03.2023, one Vekatesh of South Pappankulam, near Kallidaikurichi lodged a complaint with the Kallidaikurichi Police Station stating that he was lured to come to a place behind Kumarakoil in Kallidaikurichi by one Lakshmi Shanker; that when he arrived at the spot with his friends the said Lakshmi Shanker and Subash abused him in filthy languages and attacked him with Aruval by aiming at his neck with an intention to kill him. Based on the said complaint, a First Information Report was also registered in Cr.No.69 of 2023 on 23.03.2023 against six accused.
12.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that none of the said remanded persons complained of any torture to the Magistrate. Since a FIR in Cr.No.3/2023 had already been filed against the Revision Petitioner by the Respondent CBCID, the defacto complainant in this case namely Arunkumar exploited the situation and made false complaints during the high- level enquiry by an IAS officer resulting in the registration of FIR. No.4/2023 against the Revision Petitioner totally on baseless grounds. The enquiry officer has failed to find out the truth of the case and also ignored the Certificate of Appreciation awarded to the Revision Petitioner for arresting the persons, who were involved in the business of ganja and damaging the future of youths.
13.It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that after alleged investigation the respondent prosecution filed the Final Reports in the Trial Court with full of conflicting versions, contradictions and fallacies. The Trial Court also failed to pay attention to the allegations levelled against the Revision Petitioner by the respondent and proceeded mechanically to order the Revision Petitioner and the other accused to stand trial for the offences charged in the final reports.
14.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further argued that the Trial Court, without considering the entire evidence on record, only on the basis of the final reports, dated 21.11.2023, 21.12.2023, 23.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, in CC.No.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, respectively, framed the charges against the Revision Petitioner on 15.09.2025. The Trial Court while framing charges has not at all considered the legal aspect of the matter. The Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that framing of charges cannot be done in a mechanical manner and is bound to ascertain that there are sufficient grounds to try suspects. The impugned proceedings being an outcome of perverse exercise of judicial discretion, is bad in the eye of law.
15.It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Trial Court, while framing charges, has not taken into consideration that a charge is a foundation of the Trial and the accused is entitled to be clearly informed of the accusation, but framed the charges in violation of the statutory provisions contained under Sections 234 to 236 of BNSS, 2023. The Trial Court omitted to notice that the Statements annexed with the charge sheets, in the above CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023 are in Tamil without any English translation and as such the Revision Petitioner has been deprived of his right to complete defence by fully understanding the contents of the said annexures to the Final Reports/Charge sheets, as the Revision Petitioner is not having knowledge of Tamil Language as he belongs to other State and not fully conversant with the above Language and the English translated copy of the documents was not supplied to him for his defence.
16.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Trial Court has omitted to ensure proper compliance of statutory provisions contained under Section 316 of BNSS. The Trial Court miserably failed to notice that the Final Reports/Charge sheets in the above CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023 originated from FIR Nos.4, of 2023, which was lodged only on 01.05.2023 reporting the alleged incident dated 10.03.2023. The Trial Court ought to have realised that the above said FIR No.4 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023 is the direct outcome of the conspiracy to implicate the Revision Petitioner in multiple criminal cases consequent upon the registration of FIR No. 3 of 2023 dated 21.04.2023.
17.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the State / Prosecution having succumbed to ill motivated media propaganda, instead of conducting a thorough investigation which would have exposed the ill motive and the falsity of the allegations made by the accused in the criminal cases had hastily filed the final reports against the Revision Petitioner herein, which also has the effect of dampening the motivation and morale of sincere and straight forward Police Officials. The Trial Court failed to note that the respondent prosecution did not investigate the reasons for the delay of about 2 months in registering the FIR No. 4 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023 by the prosecution against the Revision Petitioner on the alleged incidents of 10.03.2023 and no plausible explanation was given.
18.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Trial Court ought to have noticed that the prosecution has laid the Final report against the Revision Petitioner totally absorbing the false story of the defacto complainant made in his statement, without adhering to the medical jurisprudence guidelines pertaining to the “regional injuries” particularly the “teeth” for conclusively determining the cause for the alleged damage to the teeth and gums and charges were framed considering the final reports submitted by the investigating agencies.
The Trial Court ought to have taken into account the fact that the Respondent prosecution has conducted investigation totally on the influence of the media reports, ignoring the evidences available on records.
19.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the charges framed as against the Revision Petitioner are totally illegal, arbitrary and without considering the materials on record and full opportunity was also not given to the Revision Petitioner to defend his case as the documents supplied to the Revision Petitioner were in Tamil Language and translated copies were not supplied to him. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the Revision Petitioner are liable to be quashed, as continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and he prays for ad-interim stay of all further proceedings of the case, pending against the Revision Petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 15.09.2025.
20.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) for the Respondent has opposed the entire arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. He submits that the investigation agencies, after through investigation and considering the entire evidence on record, has filed the final reports, dated 21.11.2023, 21.12.2023, 23.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, in CC.Nos. 2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, respectively. On the basis of the aforesaid final reports, after providing sufficient opportunity to the Revision Petitioner, the Trial Court has framed the charges by the impugned order dated 15.09.2025. Thus, at this stage, interference by this Court will cause prejudice to the Prosecution and he opposed the prayer for grant of ad-interim stay.
21.Mr.Henri Tiphagne, the learned counsel appeared today to argue the case and submits that he has been instructed by one of the victims to appear in this case and he has also moved an impleading application with supporting affidavit before the Registry and submitted that the same is not today before this Court and made submissions and also opposed the prayer for grant of ad-interim stay to the Revision
Petitioner.
22.Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the stay applications, this Court finds that the Petitioner has made out
a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim stay, as prayed for in all the cases referred to above
23.The matter requires consideration on both factual and legal aspects.
24.List this case “For Hearing” on 27.01.2026 before the appropriate Bench.
25.Accordingly, the effect and operation of the impugned orders, dated 15.09.2025, passed in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, respectively, by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and all further consequential proceedings of the cases in CC.Nos.2419, 2420, 2431 and 2481 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, shall remain stayed, till further orders of this Court.
21.11.2025
2/2 Srcm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli
2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, State of Tamilnadu, CBCID, Tirunelveli
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. 
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Srcm
CRL MP(MD) NOs. 18007, 18009,
18010 and 18011 of 2025 in CRL RC(MD) NO. 1427, 1428,
1429 and 1430 of 2025 2/2
21.11.2025