THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8298 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5646 and 5647 of 2024 1. T.Lenin 2. L.Vennila 3. L.Vivek Eswar 4. L.Abinisha … Petitioner/Accused No. Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Pattukottai,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8298 of 2024 and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5646 and 5647 of 2024
1. T.Lenin
2. L.Vennila
3. L.Vivek Eswar
4. L.Abinisha
… Petitioner/Accused No.

Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by. the Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Police Station, Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
Cr.No.86/2023
…. Respondents / Complainants
2. R.Vimala ….. Respondents /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with C.C.No. 162/2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R-2 : Mr.A.Arunprasad
ORDER
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court, though wide in amplitude, is circumscribed by self-imposed restraint evolved through judicial precedent. It is not intended to conduct a mini trial at the threshold nor to weigh the sufficiency of evidence as though exercising appellate scrutiny. The power exists to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but not to short-circuit legitimate prosecution.
2. The present petition invokes such jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings arising out of allegations which, according to the petitioners, spring essentially from a money transaction dressed up as criminal prosecution. The respondents, however, contend that the dispute transcends a mere civil disagreement and discloses acts of assault, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and offences under the special enactment prohibiting charging of exorbitant
interest.
3. The case thus presents a familiar but delicate question at the intersection of civil liability and criminal culpability, whether the criminal process has been misused for recovery leverage, as alleged by the petitioners, or whether the allegations disclose prima facie ingredients warranting trial.
Gist of the prosecution case:
4. The prosecution case, as emerging from the final report, is that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, a coconut cultivator owning about two acres of coconut garden, had longstanding commercial dealings with the 1st petitioner who runs M.M.A. Traders.
5. It is alleged that on various occasions the defacto complainant borrowed a sum of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- for urgent family needs and was repaying the same through supply of
coconuts. According to the prosecution, despite such supplies, the 1st petitioner allegedly collected coconuts worth over Rs.20,03,535/and thereby extracted more than what was legally due.
6. It is further alleged that notwithstanding such excess recovery, the 1st petitioner demanded an additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and had secured signed blank cheques, promissory notes and signed papers from the defacto complainant and her husband.
7. The gravamen of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2023, when the defacto complainant and her husband went to the house of the 1st petitioner for reconciliation of accounts, all the accused wrongfully restrained, assaulted and criminally intimidated them, demanding payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and threatening them with death. The husband of the defacto complainant allegedly sustained injuries requiring treatment at Government Hospital, Pattukkottai.
8. Following investigation, the respondent police laid final report for offences under Sections 342, 294(b), 352, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, which has culminated in C.C.No.162 of 2024.
Grounds for quash:
9. The petitioners seek quashment broadly on the following grounds:
(i) The entire dispute arises out of commercial and debtorcreditor transactions and is purely civil in nature.
(ii) Allegations regarding blank cheques and promissory notes are fabricated.
(iii) There are material contradictions regarding place of occurrence, nature of assault and medical evidence.
(iv) Delay in FIR reaching Court and alleged alterations in
Accident Register create grave suspicion.
(v) False implication is alleged due to political influence and pressure to write off outstanding dues.
(vi) Petitioners contend the prosecution is mala fide and intended to coerce abandonment of civil claims.
Submissions on either side:
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process. It was argued that the substratum of the complaint pertains to accounts between parties over coconut supply transactions, which can at best give rise to civil remedies. The learned counsel would submit that allegations of assault have been engineered to convert a monetary dispute into a criminal case. It was further argued that inconsistencies in complaint, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and accident register render the prosecution inherently improbable. Reliance was placed upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., and Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Koley to contend that criminal law cannot be permitted to be used for settling civil scores.
11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the final report discloses specific overt acts against each accused. It was argued that existence of civil elements does not eclipse criminality when allegations disclose assault, intimidation and illegal extraction of exorbitant interest. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that disputed questions of fact and evidentiary inconsistencies are matters for trial and not grounds for quash. Reliance was placed on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra4, Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, and Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra6 to contend that meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible at quash stage.
Points for consideration:
12. The point that arises is whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2024 fall within the parameters warranting quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), or whether the allegations disclose triable offences requiring
adjudication in trial?

4 2021 19 SCC 401 5 AIR 2021 SC 1531
6 2019 14 SCC 350
Analysis:
13. It is trite that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated limited categories for quashment. Unless allegations are absurd, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, criminal proceedings ought not be interdicted. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned High Courts against conducting mini trials at threshold.
14. The principal contention is that the matter is purely civil. This Court is unable to accept such sweeping submission. Mere existence of commercial transactions does not efface allegations of assault, intimidation or illegal coercive recovery. The complaint does not rest merely on accounting disputes; it contains allegations of physical violence, confinement and criminal intimidation. Whether those allegations are ultimately proved is matter for evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot hold that prosecution is camouflage for civil litigation alone.

7 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 8 supra
15. Insofar as the offence under Section 342 IPC is concerned,the complaint and witness statements specifically allege that when the defacto complainant and her husband went to the house of the 1st petitioner for settlement of accounts, they were prevented from leaving the premises unless the additional amount demanded by the accused was paid. The allegation that they were wrongfully restrained and confined inside the premises, coupled with threats that they would not be permitted to leave otherwise, prima facie attracts the ingredients of wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved is a matter for trial, but at this stage, this Court is unable to hold that no offence under Section 342 IPC is made out.
16. In respect of Section 324 IPC, the prosecution materials contain allegations that the accused assaulted the husband of the defacto complainant with a wooden log and caused injuries, which is sought to be corroborated through the Accident Register. Though the petitioners attempted to assail the injury particulars by referring to inconsistencies and alleged interpolations, such matters lie in the realm of appreciation of evidence. At the threshold stage, the allegations coupled with medical materials prima facie disclose an offence under Section 324 IPC, and this Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry into the evidentiary worth of such materials while exercising quash jurisdiction.
17. Equally, the allegations under Section 294(b) IPC cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. The complaint contains specific averments that the 1st petitioner abused the defacto complainant and her husband in filthy and obscene language during the occurrence. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to test the evidentiary sufficiency of those allegations. Once the complaint discloses use of obscene abusive words in the course of the occurrence, the ingredients necessary to sustain the charge at this preliminary stage cannot be said to be wholly absent.
18. Whether injury records contain interpolation or contradictions is a matter for cross-examination. Threat to kill unless Rs.15 lakhs is paid is specifically alleged. Such allegations cannot be brushed aside as purely civil rhetoric. As regards Section 506(ii) IPC, the complaint specifically alleges threats to life, coupled with the demand for payment of Rs.15,00,000/-, and an assertion that unless the amount was paid the victims would be killed. Such allegations, taken at face value as this Court is bound to do at this stage, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC. Whether the threat was real, intended to cause alarm, or ultimately proved are matters squarely within the province of trial.
19. Likewise, the allegation that exorbitant interest was extracted and coercive demands continued despite alleged excess recovery furnishes a prima facie foundation for invocation of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, and whether the ingredients of the special enactment stand established is again a matter to be tested in evidence and not in proceedings for quashment. Allegations that excessive recovery was made far beyond principal, coupled with coercive demands, form part of prosecution narrative. Whether ingredients of the special enactment stand established is matter for trial. At quash stage, this
Court cannot return a finding of non-applicability.
20. Considerable emphasis was laid on discrepancies regardingoccurrence inside house or portico, alteration in accident register and paucity of injuries. This Court is of the view that these are classic matters of defence. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be transformed into forum for testing contradictions. As held in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra , probable defence cannot found quashment.
21. Allegations of political motivation remain unsupported by unimpeachable material. Mala fides, even if alleged, do not by themselves nullify prosecution when factual foundation for offences exists. It was argued that family members have been unnecessarily roped in. However, overt acts are attributed against each accused.
This is not a case of omnibus implication bereft of particulars.
22. On careful examination, none of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories are attracted. Allegations cannot be termed absurd. No legal bar to prosecution is shown. Case does not disclose abuse warranting exercise of extraordinary power.
23. Criminal law may not be invoked to settle private scores;equally, allegations of criminal conduct cannot be neutralised merely because parties have prior monetary dealings. The present case involves disputed questions of fact, competing versions, evidentiary contradictions and issues requiring appreciation by the trial Court.
24. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot trench upon the domain of trial by evaluating defence pleas on merits. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court, including discharge, if available in law, and all factual inconsistencies may be urged during trial.
25. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition fails and stands dismissed. The proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, shall proceed in accordance with law and be concluded uninfluenced by any observation made in this order, which are only for deciding this quash petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26. However, considering the nature of allegations andrelationship of parties, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the following occasions:
(i) at the time of furnishing copies and initial appearance, if so required;
(ii) at the time of framing of charges, if any;
(iii) at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.;
(iv) at the time of pronouncement of judgment; and
(v) on such other dates as the learned Trial Judge may specifically direct their presence. Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5647 of 2024 is allowed.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Police Station, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.8298 of 2024
30.04.2026

Madras HC says you can’t kill a case at the notice stage. If allegations look like an offence on face value, the magistrate should hear it. Advocates must defend themselves there, not get HC to quash it early.