Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.14762 of 2025 1.Domnic Alphonse 2.B.Micheal Sebastin ... Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, PEW-Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.42/2025). 2.M.Munish, Inspector of Police, PEW - Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal original petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for entire records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, and quash the same as illegal. ____________ p. 2 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for Mr.T.Leninkumar For R1 : Mr.R.Ilayaraja O R D E R The petitioners seek to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offence under Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1)(a), 4(1)(d) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2. The gist of the allegation in the impugned FIR is that the respondents received a secret information and when they conducted a surprise check, the petitioners were found in possession of one litre of toddy and one litre of IMFL; that on further enquiry, they revealed that they were in possession of the said liquor, which was intended for sale and thus committed the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law; that under a notification issued by the Government, the petitioners are entitled to possess 4.5 litres of IMFL for personal ____________ p. 3 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 consumption; that there is nothing in the impugned FIR to suggest that the petitioners had committed the offence of 4(1)(d) of the Act which is tapping of any toddy producing tree belonging to them or in their possession and therefore, the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would fairly submit that the petitioners are entitled to possess 4.5 litres each of IMFL for personal consumption as per the notification issued by the State Government. He would further submit that the petitioners were in possession of toddy. Therefore, the impugned prosecution cannot be quashed. 5. The allegation in the impugned FIR is that the petitioners were found in possession of one litre of IMFL and one litre of toddy. There is no dispute with regard to the settled position that the petitioners are entitled to possess 4.5 litres of IMFL each for personal consumption, in view of the notification. The offence alleged against the petitioners is that they had tapped toddy from a tree belonging in their possession. The respondents have not filed any material to suggest that the petitioners had tapped toddy from a tree belonging to them. Hence, this Court is of the view that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners can be sustained. Therefore, the ____________ p. 4 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 impugned FIR is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 6. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 21.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu/dk To: 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ____________ p. 5 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 ____________ p. 6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN , J. Indu/dk Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17982 of 2025 21.11.2025 ____________