Naveen Aakash @ S.S.Palaniappan v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
CRL OP/11285/2026 · 2026-06-01
M Nirmal Kumar
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28362 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28362 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 and CRL MP.Nos.8010 & 8012 of 2026 Naveen Aakash @ S.S.Palaniappan ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam, Salem District. 2. Vasanthi ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in CC.No.1964 of 2025 dated 15.10.2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Manoj Kumar For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 ORDER The petitioner is the accused who is facing trial in C.C.No.1964 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, has filed the present https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 petition seeking to quash the proceedings. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner is made out. Referring to the evidence of PW1, he submitted that PW1, during her cross examination, admitted that the jewels are in her possession and therefore, the allegation of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC is not sustainable. He further submitted that, with regard to the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, no report from the Social Welfare Officer has been produced. As regards the offence under Section 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, the learned counsel submitted that mere allegation of threat, without sufficient evidence, would not attract the said offences. According to him, the evidence of the witnesses sofar collected does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for quashing the charge sheet. 3. Mr.R.Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that, in this case, four witnesses have already been examined and cross examined. The Investigating Officer has also been examined in chief, and the matter has been posted for his cross examination. He further submitted that filing the present petition at this stage of the trial would amount to short-circuiting the process of trial.
He further contended that there are sufficient materials available against the petitioner and that all contentions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 raised by the petitioner can very well be agitated before the trial Court, which shall decide the matter on merits. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the trial has substantially progressed. All the material witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined. The chief examination of the Investigating Officer has also been completed, and the matter is presently posted for his cross-examination. Thus, the case is at the penultimate stage of trial. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain a petition seeking quashment of the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on its own merits and in accordance with law. 01-06-2026 jd Neutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To
1. The Additional Mahila Court, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam, Salem District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. jd CRL OP No. 11285 of 2026 01-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis