Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 15567 of 2023 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.12368 & 12370 of 2023 1. C.Shanmugam 2. S.Backiyalakshmi Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by the Forest Range Officer, Cumbum East Range, Cumbum, Theni District. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (crl. side) Prayer: To call for the entire records connected with the case in C.C.No.57 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and quash the same. ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.57 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 Magistrate, Uthamapalayam from the crime registered in WLOR No.02.2020 for the alleged offences under section 2(2), 2(14), 2(31b), 2(32), 2(36), 9, 39(1b), 39(2),39(3), 40(1), 40(2), 49, 49A(a), 49A(b), 50(1a), 50(1b), 50(1c) and 50(1A) of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 dated 14.09.2020. The petitioners were later on added in the alleged crime. 2. The respondent had filed counter stating that on 14.09.2020, based on secret information, the team officers headed by Forest Ranger along with police team have conducted inspection and also searched the house belongs to the Nandhagopal and his father namely, Shanmugam/A2, at night 09.30 pm. On search and inspection, they found the following articles: “gr;irf;fha;fwpfSld; khd;nfhk;Gfs; ehd;F vz;zk; (Kjy; nfhk;G - ePsk; 67 nr.kP> ,uz;lhtJ nfhk;G-ePsk; 54 nr.kP> %d;whtJ nfhk;G-ePsk; 77 nr.kP> ehd;fhtJ nfhk;G ePsk; 70 nr.kP> kapy; Njhiffs; itf;fg;gl;l ,uz;L ghf;nfl;Lfs;> Gypefk;-,uz;L vz;zk;> ahidj;je;jk; rpwpaJ 1 vz;zk; (9 nr.kP> Rw;wsT 13 nr.kP) kw;Wk; ifg;gl vOjg;gll fbjk; xd;Wk;”;. 3. The above said articles were seized and conducted enquiry. But the accused persons have refused to give the details of the articles. Therefore, the 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 respondent has registered a case in WLOR No.02 of 2020, on 14/09/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 2(2), 2(14), 2(31b), 2(32), 2(36), 9, 39(1b), 39(2), 39(3), 40(1), 40(2), 49, 49A(a), 49A(b), 50(1a), 50(1b), 50(1c) and 51(1A) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The seized articles were remanded before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. A1 was also remanded to custody. 4. The seized articles were sent for biological analysis. Based on the confession statement, the petitioners herein were arrayed as Accused Nos.2 & 3. 5. The biological test reveals that the above said articles are prohibited animal parts. After completing investigation, the respondent has filed final report and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.57 of 2022 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the material documents available on record. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings in C.C.No.57 of 2022 was quashed against the 4th accused by order of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 this Court dated 14.07.2023 in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.19888 of 2022. In the said order it has been held that the 4th accused was roped in since he is the brother of A1, further the 4th accused was not in the scene of occurrence and he was implicated based on confession, hence the FIR was quashed against the 4th accused. 8. In the present case the 1st petitioner is the father of A1 and 2nd petitioner is the mother of A1. Absolutely there is no allegation against the 2nd petitioner, who has been implicated since she is the mother of A1. 9. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned it is stated that the 1st petitioner has confessed himself and admitted the crime. It is seen that 1st petitioner / 2nd accused was arrested, thereafter a statement was obtained. While in custody if the accused gives statement the same which is inadmissible in law under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Further there is no independent evidence against the 1st petitioner apart from the above said confession. The prosecution has not produced any admissible evidence showing that the 1st petitioner had committed any act punishable under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 10. It is well-settled that the confession of accused while in custody is not substantive evidence. In the present case it is only based on the confession of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 the accused the entire case is filed against the 2nd petitioner. The same cannot by itself form the basis for prosecution. Further when A4 case was quashed by this Court on identical grounds, the petitioners also be extended the same relief, especially when no additional or incriminating material is available against them. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.57 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is hereby quashed in so far as the petitioners / 2nd and 3rd accused herein is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18-11-2025 KSA To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalaym. 2. The Forest Range Officer, Cumbum East Range, Cumbum, Theni District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.15567 of 2023 Madurai. S.SRIMATHY,J KSA ORDER IN CRL OP(MD). No.15567 of 2023 18.11.2025 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis