CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 Saraswathi S/o.Selvaraj, No.11/17, 1st street, Sattakkalpudur, Sokkanur, Coimbatore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Race Course Circle, Coimbatore District. 2. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.Crime No. 174 of 2026. 3. Ramsait S/o.Ramachandran, No.2, Devi illam, Priya Nagar, Telungupalayam, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases) to consider the petitioner's bail application to be filed on the same day on his surrender in crime No.174 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the 2nd respondent and thus render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side) for R1 And R2 Mr.A.Tamilarasan for R3 ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were having business dealing. Petitioner used to purchase egg from the defacto complainant and there was some misunderstanding between them, for which the defacto complainant had filed the complaint and also lodged a civil suit as against the petitioner and others. The said suit is pending before the concerned court. This being the situation, the defacto complainant has falsely projected as if the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant when the defacto complainant was going to his advocate’s office, abused and threatened him. 2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent strongly objected the petitioner’s contentions. He would submit that the defacto complainant is doing egg business. Through Rajendran and Krishnaveni, the petitioner came into contact with the defacto complainant and started buying eggs from him. For the said business, the defacto complainant used to enter into an agreement with the persons who are receiving eggs from him. As per which, the petitioner has to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 pay a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs to the defacto complainant. When the said amount was demanded by the defacto complainant, the petitioner refused to pay the same. Therefore, the defacto complainant has instituted a suit as well as the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While being so, when the defacto complainant was on the way to his advocate’s office, the petitioner attacked him, abused and threatened him. The said action of the petitioner was witnessed by one Sanjay and Arulraj. Hence the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent – Police and the same was registered in Crime No.174 of 2026 for the offences under Section 296 (b), 351 (2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu would submit that the case has been registered on 17.05.2026. The allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting a thorough investigation. At this stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into. The petitioner has raised several disputed questions of fact, which can be examined only during the course of investigation. Therefore, he seeks time to complete the investigation and prays for dismissal of the quash petition as premature. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 4. Considering the rival submissions and on a perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the FIR discloses specific allegations as against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have business dealings and in due course of the business dealing, cases both in the Civil Court and the proceedings under the NI Act are pending. The contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which require investigation. The grounds raised by the petitioner are matters of defence, which can be established during the course of investigation or at the appropriate stage before the competent Court. 5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the present Criminal Original Petition and the petitioner is directed to raise all her objections before the concerned Court, at the time of considering her bail petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Jer https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Race Course Circle, Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No. 174 of 2026. 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. Jer CRL OP No. 14925 of 2026 12-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis