CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 1. Goghul S/o. Radhakrishnan, Door No.34, Vivekandandar Street, Balasubramanian Nagar, Harveypatti, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District 625 005. 2. Dhayanithi, S/o. Arumugam, Door No.5, 3rd Street, Bharathiyar Nagar, Kancheepuram District 603 306. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State through Sub Inspector of Police Perumbakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu District. in Cr. No.422/2024. 2. H. Veeramani, S/o. Hariharan, Door No.2/180, 2nd Street, Hanuman Colony, Echampakkam, Chennai-600 115. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records of crime No.422 of 2024 on the pending before the Respondent No.1 Police and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Om Prakash For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.422 of 2024. The case has been registered for the offences under Sections 127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 308(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case is false and inherently improbable. According to him, the accused had earlier preferred a complaint and, during the enquiry conducted by the police, the defacto complainant admitted that money was due to the accused and that the same had subsequently been repaid. Placing reliance on the said proceedings, the learned counsel contended that the allegations contained in the FIR are ex facie false and, therefore, this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the averments contained in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and therefore, the case was rightly registered. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and that 16 witnesses have already been examined. According to him, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 4. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The contentions raised by the petitioner are essentially factual in nature. It is always open to the petitioners to place all such materials, including the earlier complaint, the enquiry proceedings, the details relating to repayment of money, and any other relevant documents, before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall take into consideration the said materials while conducting the investigation and while filing the final report. 5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to place all relevant materials before the investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the same and complete the investigation and file the final report, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 01-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No av https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To 1. The Sub Inspector of Police Perumbakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. av CRL OP No. 16685 of 2026 01-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis