Madras High Court
Mrs.Kanimozhi vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 11.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).No. 7727 of 2024
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.5380 of 2024 & 1773 of 2026
1.Mrs.Kanimozhi
2.P.Mokkamayan
3.Mrs.Kalavathi
4.M.Tamil Udayan
5.K.Mahendran ....Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police
Uthamapalayam Police Station
Theni District
Crime No.1791 of 2020
2.Mr.Arun Deepak ....Respondents
Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the case in C.C.No.41 of
2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and to
quash the same in respect of the petitioners 1 to 5.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.Babu.Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
:M/s.S.Meena for R2
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in C.C.No.
41 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam seeking to
quash the charge sheet wherein they have been charged with the offences
under Section 111, 120(b), 294(b), 326, 340, 383 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
2.A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the defacto complainant is
the husband of the 1st accused and accused Nos.2 and 3 are his parents-in-law
and accused Nos.4 and 5 are his brothers-in-law.
3.The charge sheet further reveals that all the accused persons have
threatened and abused the defacto complainant to transfer the properties in
the name of the 1st accused who is the wife of the defacto complainant. On
26.05.2020, when the defacto complainant had entered the house and
requested his wife to provide buttermilk, he found that it was sour, half an
hour after consumption of the same, he had experienced stomach pain and
when he informed his wife that he would like to go hospital, the wife had
closed the room. When the defacto complainant enquired about the same, the
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
1st accused is alleged to have told him that only if you die, I will get the
property. Thereafter, the defacto complainant is said to have raised an alarm
and neighbours came there and broke open the door and admitted the defacto
complainant to Uthamapalayam Government Hospital.
4.As per the charge sheet, when the defacto complainant returned back
home, it was found that the 1st accused (wife) had taken back all the jewels
and sarees from home along with her son. Therefore, the accused persons
have in connivance with each other, with a criminal intention to grab the
properties and to commit the murder of the defacto complainant by adding ant
killer power and 20 sleeping tablets in the Kabasura Water which was given
to him instead of buttermilk.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had raised the
following grounds for quashing the charge sheet.
a)The 1st accused had filed a criminal case in Crime No.8 of 2018 as
against the defacto complainant and it was charged in C.C.No.388 of 2019 on
the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai
for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 I.P.C. The 1st accused
has also filed DVOP.No.33 of 2018 before the Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai. The defacto complainant tendered apology and agreed to live along
with the petitioner and requested to withdraw the cases. Therefore, a
compromise petition was filed in Crl.OP(MD).No.4396 of 2020 and the same
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024was allowed on 11.03.2020 quashing the charge in C.C.No.388 of 2019.
b)The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that
after quashing of the charge sheet, the defacto complainant had enacted a
drama as if he was administered with poison on 26.05.2020. He further
submitted that on 26.05.2020, the 1st petitioner has lodged a complaint before
the police officials and the same was transferred to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam and enquiry was conducted on
09.06.2020. The 1st petitioner had also filed an application before this Court
to recall the order passed in Crl.OP(MD).No.4396 of 2020. Suppressing these
facts, the defacto complainant has lodged the police complaint.
c)The learned counsel for the petitioners had further stated that the
defacto complainant had filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before
the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam seeking to register an F.I.R.
based upon the alleged incident dated 26.05.2020. Only based upon the
orders of the Court, the present F.I.R has been registered on 14.09.2020 in
Crime No.1791 of 2020 which has culminated in filing of the charge sheet in
C.C.No.41 of 2023.
d)According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a perusal of the
petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C would clearly reveal that it is filed
only as a petition and not accompanied by any affidavit. He relied upon a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
( Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others)
wherein in Paragraph No.27, it has been held that the learned Magistrate has
to verify the veracity of the allegation by way of an affidavit so that the
applicant can be more responsible. This would avoid harassment. Therefore,
according to him, in the present case, since no affidavit was filed on the side
of the defacto complainant in order to seek remedy under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C, the order passed by the Court is clearly illegal and void. Therefore,
the F.I.R registered by the concerned police officials is also not valid in the
eye of law. He further submitted that the entire investigation pursuant to the
invalid F.I.R and the charge sheet laid in the present case are liable to be set
aside.
e)The learned counsel for the petitioners had also relied upon a
Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl) 489
(G.Prabakaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District and
another) specifically Paragraph No.20 and contended that without
approaching the concerned higher police officials for non-registration of the
F.I.R, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C cannot be entertained by
the Judicial Magistrate.
f)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended
that no independent witness has been examined on the said of the authorities.
The list of witnesses annexed to the charge sheet would clearly reveal that all
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
of them are close relatives of the husband and therefore, it is completely a
biased investigation and the chances of the conviction are blink in nature.
g)The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that the
offence under Section 294(b) has not been made out in view of the fact that
the entire alleged offence is said to have taken place inside the room and not
in a public place. He further submitted that the alleged offence under Section
506(ii) I.P.C has not been made out in view of the fact that the threat alleged
to have been made only through a phone call and therefore, the threat is not
real and it is not resulted in any untoward incident. Phone details or number
from which the calls emanates has not been mentioned.
h)The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that the
allegation of criminal conspiracy has not been made out in view of the fact
that the allegations are completely bald in nature and no particulars has been
furnished. The ingredients of Section 111 of I.P.C have not been made out.
i).The learned counsel had further submitted that the charge sheet
refers Section 340 I.P.C and indicates that it is a definition section. Only
Section 341 I.P.C is the punishment section and the same has not been
invoked. He had further submitted that when the defacto complainant does
not own any property whatsoever, hence the question of invoking Section 383
of I.P.C would not arise. No details have been furnished by the defacto
complainant that he owns the properties and he was pressurized by accused
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
persons for transferring the properties in favour of the accused. Hence, he
prayed for allowing the petition and to quash the charge sheet.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that the defacto complainant owns properties and the accused
persons threatened the defacto complainant to transfer those properties in
favour of the accused persons especially the 1st accused. She further
submitted that the reading of the charge sheet would clearly reveal that the
ingredients of all the offences have been made out. The contention raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on the disputed fact and
therefore, they could be absolved only by conducting a trial. He further
submitted that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had further
submitted that the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C, the criminal
conspiracy, Sections 111 and 383 of I.P.C have been made out. The
petitioners cannot raise the disputed facts before this Court in order to quash
the charge sheet. The Court cannot conduct a mini trial in order to arrive at
conclusion. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the ingredients of each one of the offences have
been made out and after thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
laid. He further submitted that there was a direction from the concerned
Judicial Magistrate for registration of the F.I.R and thereafter, the F.I.R has
been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been laid. When
prima facie case is made out as against the petitioner, the Court cannot
interfere at this stage to quash the charge sheet. Whether the incident has
taken place in a public or not is a matter of trial and therefore, at this stage
cannot be quashed.
9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
10.The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that the application filed by the defacto complainant under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam
has not been accompanied by an affidavit. He relied upon Paragraph No.30 of
the judgement of Priyanka Srivastava‘s case (cited supra) which is
extracted as follows:
“30.In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this
country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be
supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks
the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in
an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well
advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the
allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking
any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons……”
11.The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s
case which is extracted above has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 4046 (SAS Infratech
Pvt.Ltd., Vs. State of Telangana and another). Paragraph No.9 of the said
judgment is extracted as follows:
“9.The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed
reliance of the decision of this Court in “Priyanka Srivastava And
Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others” (2015) 6 SCC
287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant –
complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the
said observation has been made in the said case by way of
abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided.”
12.A careful reading of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Priyanka Srivastava‘s case will clearly indicate that the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has to be supported by an affidavit duly signed by the
applicant. However, the said finding has been clarified in SAS Infratech
Pvt.Ltd., case to the effect that the observation in Priyanka Srivastava‘s case
has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that the
frivolous complaint are avoided. In Priyanka Srivastava‘s case even though
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was not accompanied by an
affidavit, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to confirm the direction
issued by the Judicial Magistrate for registration of an F.I.R, especially when
the Judicial Magistrate has applied his mind and prima facie satisfied with
regard to the commission of cognizable offence.
13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 1514 (Anurag Bhatnagar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another ) in Paragraph No.32 has held as follows:
“32.In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the
informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C without exhausting his statutory remedies, the
Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application
and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR.
However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate
is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a
given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order,
the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without
jurisdiction. “
14.In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear
that even if an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not accompanied by
an affidavit that would only result in procedural irregularity and it cannot be
termed to be illegal or without jurisdiction. That apart, merely because a
complainant is not exhausting the other statutory remedy like approaching the
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
superior officer, that would not take away the jurisdiction of the Judicial
Magistrate to pass orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and any order passed
by him would only be irregular and not illegal or without jurisdiction. In such
view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the application filed by the defacto complainant under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C without a sworn affidavit or without exhausting the other
statutory remedy is illegal, cannot be countenanced, especially in the light of
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra.
15.In the present case, a perusal of the application filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate clearly reveals that it is filed in
the form of an sworn affidavit and therefore, the contention of the petitioners
have to be rejected even assuming that filing of an affidavit is mandatory.
16.The learned Judicial Magistrate after applying his mind and
exercising his jurisdiction has passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
directing the police authorities to consider the complaint and register an F.I.R
and in such circumstances, the police authorities does not have any discretion
whatsoever except to register an F.I.R. Whether a cognizable offence is made
out or not has already been taken into consideration by the Judicial
Magistrate and only thereafter, an order under Section 156(3) has been
passed. In such circumstances, the registration of the F.I.R by the concerned
police official cannot be found fault with or it does not get vitiated by some
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
alleged irregularities in passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In such
circumstances, merely on the ground that there was some irregularities as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in passing an order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, an F.I.R or charge sheet do not get vitiated and they
are not liable to be quashed on the said ground.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that
the petitioners have been charged over several offences and the ingredients
have not been satisfied. This Court has gone through the charge sheet. The
first petitioner is said to have threatened the husband for transferring the
property and she is said to have offered an Ayurvedic Decoction which has
caused stomach pain to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has
been locked in the room. He had been rescued by the neighbours. According
to the charge sheet, the Ayurvedi Decoction contains ant killer power and 20
sleeping tablets. Whether the defacto complainant had properties or not is a
matter of trial. Whether the defacto complainant was really locked in a room
and whether he was administered with the poison or not cannot be decided on
the basis of medical records without cross examination of the concerned
doctor.
18.In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, when
the charge sheet reveals a prima facie case, cognizable offence as against the
petitioners herein, this Court cannot interfere at this stage and quash the
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
criminal proceedings.
19.In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the petition
and the same stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the
criminal proceedings without being influenced by any one of the observations
made by this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
18.03.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate
Uthamapalayam
2.The Inspector of Police
Uthamapalayam Police Station
Theni District
Crime No.1791 of 2020
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Crl.OP(MD).No. 7727 of 2024
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.5380 of 2024 & 1773 of 2026
18.03.2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 03:01:00 pm )
