Arul Jayaseelan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thallakulam
CRL OP(MD)/4839/2026 · 2026-03-25
R Vijayakumar
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24129 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24129 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.OP.(MD)No.4839 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5193 of 2026
1. Arul Jayaseelan
2. Venkateswaran
3. Kalishwaran
4. Munishwaran
5. Arul
6. Senthilkumar
7. Poovalingam
8. Sheik Rathinam
9. Vanniyaraja
10. Arumugam
11. Aswin Raja
12. Muthukarthi
13. Akash
14. Saral
15. Pandiammal
16. Thangamariyammal
17. Kala
18. Sudharani
19. Yamunadevi
20. Parijatham
21. Subramaniyan 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. Prabhu
23. Murugan
24. Manikandan
25. Saravanakumar
26. Fathima Johnson
27. Muthumurugan
28. Durai Prabhakaran
29. Dhakshinamoorthy
30. Kathiravan
31. Vinoth
32. Rajesh
33. Velayutham
34. Sankar
35. Madhan
36. Suresh
37. Saravanan
38. Dinakaran
39. Gopirajan
40. Mahamuni Karupiah
41. Vignesh Kumar
42. Sathishkumar
43. Manikandan
44. Pandi
45. Jayakumar
46. Manivannan
47. Raja
48. Karuppiah
49. Kasimayan
50. Jawahar 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
51. Selvam
52. Sethurajan
53. Moorthi
54. Sankarapandian
55. Naveen
56. Vijayaramachandran
57. Thivakaran
58. Sivakumar
59. Karthikeyan
60. Rajkumar
61. Karnan
62. Maruthamuthu
63. John Jayasingh
64. Sivanantham
65. Thirumurugan @ Dheeran Thirumurugan ...Petitioners Vs
1.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai. Crime No.960/2025. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. N.Athikuntha Kannan, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai. ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records connected with F.I.R. in Crime No.960 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Manibharathi For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(crl.side) for R1 ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.960 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 189(2), 126 and 292 of BNS, 2023. 2. A perusal of F.I.R. reveals that all the 65 petitioners belong to Nam Tamizhar Political Party and they have staged a protest in front of Madurai Thallakulam Tamukkam area against the removal of 5 statues and as per the F.I.R, they had blocked the road and caused inconvenience to the general public and despite warning, they have not dispersed. 3.
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, all the 5 statues were removed by the Government without prior intimation or without any intimation when they will be restored and in such circumstances, on behalf of the general public, the members of the political party staged peaceful protest in order to restore the statues in that place. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl. side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that the statues were removed for the construction of a bridge and after the construction is completed, the statues would be restored. 5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. A perusal of F.I.R. clearly reveals that the members of a political party have staged protest in front of Madurai Tallakulam Tamukkam ground in a democratic manner without any intention to commit any offence especially protesting against the removal of 5 statues, which were there for so many years. 7. In view of the above said facts, it is clear that when the petitioners have expressed their dissent in a peaceful and democratic manner, the same cannot be considered to be with an intention to commit any offence, especially when the same has been done by the members of a recognised political party. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In view of the above said facts, no useful purpose would be served in directing the police officials to continue the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners. Therefore, the F.I.R. in crime No.960 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 25.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
, J.
RJR
Crl.OP.(MD)No.4839 of 2026 25.03.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis