BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :06.04.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR CRL.O.P(MD)No.6581 of 2026 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.7148 and 7149 of 2026 Paulraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 .Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crime No.26 of 2025. ...Respondent/Complainant 2.Kumaresan Special Sub Inspector of Police-1193, Kotticode Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/De-facto complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed underSection 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying this Court to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.259 o 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and quash the same against the Petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Russel Raj 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Respondent-1 :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the third accused in C.C.No.259 o 2025, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, wherein, the Petitioner has been charged with the offence under Sections 223, 303(2) of BNSS, 2023 and section 231(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957. 2.A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that on 24.1.2025 at 8.30 am., the lorry belonging to A2 driven by A1 was carrying M- sand without prior permission and before the time allowed by the Government. It is further alleged that A3 is also involved in the said offence. 3.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as per the charge sheet, A3 is the owner of the quarry and hence the question of invoking Section 303(2) of BNSS, 2023 against the Petitioner would not arise.He further submitted that no specific overtact is attributed against the third accused. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis perused the materials placed before this Court. 5.A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that no specific overtact is attributed against the Petiitoner, especially, in the light of the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the quarry. In such circumstances, as there is no specific overtact attributed against the Peititoner, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the third accused would be an abuse of process of law. 6.In view of the above facts, the charge sheet in C.C.No.259 o 2025, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District stands quashed as against the third accused alone and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 06.04.2026 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.The Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crime No.26 of 2025. Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. R.VIJAYAKUMAR.,J. vsn ORDER MADE IN 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P(MD)No.6581 of 2026 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.7148 and 7149 of 2026 06.04.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis