Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 13.07.2026 Pronounced on : 17.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.9922 and 10076 of 2026 Crl.OP.No.15258 of 2026 Dr.Ponraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai. (Cr.No.59 of 2026) 2. Nirmal Kumar, (MLA Thiruparakundram Constituency) and is currently serving as a Energy Resource & Law Minister) S/o.Raja, Plot No.275, Seashore Town, 8th Avenue, Panaiyur, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai -600 119. … Respondents 1/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Crl.OP.No.15446 of 2026 Dr.Ponraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai. (Cr.No.194 of 2026) 2. Raj Kumar, (MLA Cuddalore Constituency) Minister of Housing and Union Development) S/o.Bagavanthasamy No.1, Kowsalya Nagar, Thiruppadhiripuliyur, Cuddalore -607 002. … Respondents Prayer in Crl.OP.No.15258 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records in Cr.No.59 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. Prayer in Crl.OP.No.15446 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records in Cr.No.194 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Ashwin Prasanna (in both Crl.Ops) For Respondents : Mr.Arun Anbumani, Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.Kripakaran, for M/s. M.B.Ramya for R2 COMMON ORDER Both the complaints were lodged by two different complainants before different police stations. However, the allegations in both the complaints are identical, and the accused is also the same. Hence, this Court passes the following common order in both the petitions. Crl.O.P. No.15258 of 2026 2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.59 of 2026 registered by the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Crl.O.P. No.15446 of 2026 3. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.194 of 2026 registered by the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent lodged a complaint on 18.03.2026 alleging that, while surfing the internet, he came across a video uploaded on the "King 360" YouTube channel, wherein the accused made derogatory remarks against the women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam political party. The accused allegedly described the women members of the said political party as prostitutes and illiterates (jw;Fwp) and further thanked the leader of the said party for exposing them. According to the complainant, the statements made by the accused were derogatory in nature and intended to outrage and demean the modesty of women. It is further alleged that such remarks were not confined to the women 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 members of the said political party alone but were capable of insulting the dignity of women in general across the State of Tamil Nadu. The investigation is pending on the file of the first respondent. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N.R.Elango, appearing for the petitioner would submit that no offence is made out, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety. According to him, the FIR does not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner, and the very registration of the FIR amounts to an abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the complaint is politically motivated and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with a mala fide intention. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature and do not satisfy the ingredients of any of the alleged offences. He submitted that the petitioner is a distinguished scientist, public policy advisor and social visionary with over 35 years of multidisciplinary experience in defence aerospace, technology, information systems and youth 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 empowerment. He served as Director (Technology Interface) at the President's Secretariat during the tenure of the 11th President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Thereafter, he served as Adviser on Science and Technology and Public Policy from 2007 to 2015. He is also contributed as a Senior Scientist to India's Indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-TEJAS) Programme at the Aeronautical Development Agency, Ministry of Defence, from 1995 to 2016. Therefore, the petitioner is not a politician but a political commentator and a public voice on Tamil Nadu politics, participating regularly in interviews on electronic and social media platforms. 7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the complaints in both the cases were lodged solely on the basis of an interview given by the petitioner, which was telecasted on 18.03.2026. According to him, the complainants have picked out a single word used by the petitioner without appreciating the interview in its entirety. He further submitted that the petitioner had addressed a written explanation to the Commissioner of Police explaining the context in which the said expression was used. Thereafter, the 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 alleged video was removed from the YouTube channel. It was therefore contended that the petitioner did not make any derogatory comment or statement against any particular woman. 8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, there must be a specific allegation that the accused intended to insult or demean a particular woman with the requisite intention or knowledge. In the said interview, the petitioner had merely explained the statement made by a woman and expressed the view that she had been misled by the leaders of her political party. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the complaints have been lodged by selectively extracting, editing and misrepresenting portions of the petitioner's interview, thereby presenting it out of context. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, although the complaints had been lodged much earlier, the FIRs came to be registered only after the declaration of the election results. According to him, this itself demonstrates that the FIRs were registered with a 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 political motive. He also contended that the first respondent mechanically registered the FIRs upon receipt of the complaints without even conducting even a preliminary enquiry. 10. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contentions, has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2026) 1 SCC 721 in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that as follows “ 35. The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the Preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thoughts and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19 ((1) (a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. The are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. 53. Following is the summary of our conclusions: 53. Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 Cr.P.C. It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an office in charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter. However, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., as held in Lalita Kumar, only a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether the information received disclosed a cognizable offence. Moreover, a preliminary inquiry can be made under Cr.PC only if the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 inquiry. Sub -section (3) of Section 173 BNSS is an exception to sub-section (1) 173. In the category of cases covered by sub-section(3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of cognizable offence. 53.2 Under sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to the a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register the FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant-complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-section (4) of Section 173. 53.3 In case of the offence punishable under Section 196 BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise lead to the consequences provided in the section, the police officer to whom information is furnished will have to 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer in charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub section (1) of Section 173”. 11. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contentions, has also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 in the case of S.Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and another, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the complainant was not a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 198 of Cr.P.C, since the news item in question 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 did not mention any individual person nor did it contain any defamatory, irreputation against any individual. 12. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the offences involved therein are entirely different from those alleged in the case on hand. Moreover, the complaints in the present case are based on allegations of defamatory and derogatory remarks made against an identifiable class of women. 13. The learned counsel for the second respondents/Defacto complainants in both the petitions submits that the second respondent in Crl.OP.No15258 of 2026 is the Joint General Secretary of Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam and is currently serving as Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Thiruparakundram Constituency and as Minister for Energy Resources and Law, Government of Tamilnadu. The second respondent in Crl.OP.No15446 of 2026 is currently serving as the Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Cuddalore Constituency and as Minister for Housing and 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Urban Development, Government of Tamilnadu. He further submitted that on 18.03.2026, during the course of an interview telecasted on the YouTube channel "King 360", the petitioner allegedly made derogatory and defamatory remarks against the women members of the political party, namely Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, by collectively describing them as “Prostitutes” and illiterate (“jw;Fwp”). He also allegedly thanked the political leader for having “exposed them”. He further submits that the said statement was not an inadvertent remark, but a deliberate and considered remark. Hence, he vehemently opposed to allow these petitons. 14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the prosecution case and produced the statement of one Tmt.D.Geedha Banupriya, recorded under Section 180(3) of BNSS. The relevant portion of the statement is reads as follows: “ …………….King 360” vd;w a{[oa[g; nrdypy tp$a;f;F r’;F Cjpa Mjt; vd;w jiyg;gpy; lhf;lh; bghd;uh$; mth;fspd; neh;fhzy; tPonah 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 btspaplg;gl;oUe;jJ/ me;j tPonahtpy; jpU/bghd;uh$; bts;isr;rhkp vd;gth; ///////// ,g;gog;gl;l xU jkpH;ehl;Ly ,g;go xu jw;Fwp Tl;lk; ,Uf;F mg;god;wj fhkpr;R bfhLj;jJf;F tp$a;f;F ek;k ed;wp brhy;yDk;/ X. ,g;go xU jw;Fwp Tl;lk; vy;yhk; ,Uf;F. X jhpbfl;L nghff;Toa jw;FwpTl;lk; tuKiw ,y;yhj jw;FwpTl;lk/ g[Ucod; vdf;F njitapy;iy. vdf;F tp$a;jhd; ntZk;D brhy;w tpgr;rhuTl;lk;/ j’;fr;rpah ,Ug;nghk;. mf;fhth ,Ug;nghk;. bghz;lhl;oah ,Ug;gnghk;D brhy;yf;Toa xU tpgr;rhhpfs; epiwe;j xU urpiffs; ,Uf;ff;Toa xU jw;FwpTl;lk; ,’;f ,Uf;F mg;god;wj cyfj;jpw;F btspfhkpr;rJf;F ek;k tp$a;a te;J ghuhl;lDk; ///////// j’;fr;rpah ,Ug;ngd;. mf;fhth ,Ug;ngd;dh/// bghz;lhl;oah ,Ug;ngd;D brhd;dh mts te;J tpgr;rhhpd;D brhy;yyhk; ,y;y nkw;go bghd;uh$;. MtUila neh;fhzypy; j/bt/f fl;rpia rhh;e;j bgz;fis xl;Lbkhj;jkhf Fwpitj;J mth;fis mtkhdg;gLj;Jk; nehf;fj;Jld; mth;fspd; bgz;ikia. khz;ig. fz;zpaj;ij Fiyf;Fk; tifapy; jkpHf btw;wp fHfj;ij nrh;e;j bgz;fs; midtiua[k; tpgr;rhhpfs; vd;W bghUk;gLk; tifapy;. juf;Fiwthf. ,Hpthf ngrpaij nfl;l ehd; kw;Wk; v’;fs; jbtf fl;rpia nrh;e;j bgz;fs; midtUk; kpft[k; tUj;jg;gl;nlhk;. vd;idg;nghd;w bgz;fs; murpay; thHf;ifapy; <LgltpUk;gp tPl;iltpl;L btspapy;te;jhy; v’;fis tpgr;rhhpfs; vd;W rK:ftiyjsj;jpy; bghJ kf;fs; ghh;f;Fk; tifapy; ,Hpt[gLj;jp. mrp’;fg;gLj;jp xl;Lbkhj;j bgz;fisa[k; kPz;Lk; tPl;ow;Fs;nsna Kl’;r;bra;a[k; tifapy; bghd;uh$; ngrpa[s;;shh;/ jpU bghd;uh$; 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 murpay;Mjhaj;jpw;fhf mth; rhh;e;j fl;rpf;F Mjut[ mspf;f vz;zp. Xl;Lbkhj;j bgz;fspd; xGf;fk;. fz;zpak; rK:fkhpahijia rPh;Fiyf;Fk; tifapy;. bghJ kf;fs; kj;jpapy; bgz;fis tpgr;rhhpfs; vd;W gyKiw bjhptpj;J mtkhdg;gLj;jpa[s;ssh;/ bghd;uh$; bjhptpj;Js;s ,e;j fUj;J jkpHf bgz;fs; mdithpd; fz;zpaj;ija[k; khpahijiaa[k; ,Hpt[gLj;Jtjhfnt ehd; fUJfpnwd;/ nkYk; v’;fSila jkpHf btw;wp fHfj;ij nrh;e;j bgz; eph;thfpfs; cWg;gpdh;fs;mdithpd; fz;zpaj;ija[k; ,Hpt[gLj;Jk; tifapy; mtuJ ngr;R ,Ue;jJ/ nkw;go bghd;uh$; vd;gthpd; bghWg;gw;w kw;Wk; bgz;fis mtkjpf;Fk; ngr;rhy; vdf;Fk;. vd;Dila FLk;gj;jpdUf;Fk; kw;Wk; v’;fs; jkpHf btw;wp fHfj;ij nrh;e;j bgz;fs; midtUf;Fk; kpFe;j kdntjid. kdcisr;ry; kw;Wk; mtkhd czh;t[ Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk; jkpHf;fjpy; cs;s midj;J bgz;fspd; rK:fkjpg;g[ jd;khdk; kw;Wk; fz;zpaj;jpw;F kpfg;bghpa ,Hpt[ Vw;gl;Ls;;sjhfnt ehd; cWjpahf epidf;fpnwd;/ jpU bghd;uh$; mth;fs; ,t;thW bgz;fis xl;Lbkhj;jkhf tpgr;rhhpfs; vd;W rpj;jhpj;J ngRtJ. bgz;fspd; mog;gil kdpj chpik. fz;zpak; kw;Wk; rkj;Jtj;jpw;F vjpuhd brayhFk;/ mtUila ,j;jifa ,Hpthd ngr;Rf;fs; bghJkf;fspilna bgz;fs; Fwpj;J jtwhd vz;z;’;fis cUthf;fp bgz;fSf;F vjpuhj btWg;g[. mtkjpg;g[ kw;Wk; rK:ftpnuhj kdepiyia J}z;lf;TLk;/ nkYk; ,J rK:f xw;Wikiaa[k; bghJ mikjpiaa[k; ghjpf;Fk;tifapyhd fz;of;fj;jf;f brayhFk;”/ Hence, he further submits that may women members of that political 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 party are aggrieved by the derogatory and defamatory remarks made against them. Hence, he has vehemently opposed to allow these petitions. 15. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the materials available on record produced before this Court, including counter statement and the explanation given by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Police dated 27.03.2026. 16. A perusal of the counter statement filed by the second respondents in both the petitions, the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, the leaned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the learned counsel for the second respondents revealed that on 18.03.2026, during the course of an interview telecasted on the YouTube channel "King 360", the petitioner allegedly made derogatory and defamatory remarks against 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 the women members of the political party, namely Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, by collectively describing them as “Prostitutes” and illiterate (“jw;Fwp”). He also allegedly thanked the political leader for having “exposed them”. According to the prosecution, the said remarks were intended to demean the modesty and dignity of the women cadre of the said political party. 17. The defacto complainant in Crl.O.P. No.15258 of 2026 initially submitted a complaint before the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, seeking appropriate action against the petitioner. The said complaint was thereafter forwarded to the jurisdictional police, and upon due verification, the first respondent registered the FIR. 18. To attract the offence punishable under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it is sufficient if a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, utters any word or makes any gesture intending that such words or gestures be heard by or concern such woman. The expression "any woman" occurring in the provision is not confined to a single named individual. It is sufficient if the 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 offending words are directed against or concern an identifiable and ascertainable class of women. The women cadre of the said political party constitute such an identifiable and ascertainable class, being known functionaries and volunteers of a registered political party. Therefore, prima facie, the statements allegedly made by the petitioner were directed against them. 19. The petitioner, being a person of considerable standing in society, ought to have exercised greater restraint while making public statements. A person possessing scientific eminence, educational qualifications and public accomplishments bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and is expected to refrain from making derogatory or demeaning remarks against women. Such status cannot be pleaded as a defence to seek quashing of the FIR when the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. 20. Further, a perusal of the petitioner's representation reveals that it is nothing but an explanation submitted to the Commissioner of 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Police. The subsequent removal of the alleged video from the YouTube channel does not efface or nullify the alleged commission of the offences. 21. Further, Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not require that the offending words should be addressed to a single named woman. It is sufficient if the words are intended to be heard by, or are directed at, a woman or an identifiable class of women. Prima facie, the petitioner's speech leaves no ambiguity that it was directed at, and concerned the women cadre of the said political party, who constitute an identifiable and ascertainable class. 22. Further, the speech was published and transmitted in electronic form through the YouTube platform. According to the prosecution, the statements denigrated the collective dignity and character of the women concerned in the eyes of the public who viewed the said video. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations also attract the provisions of Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 23. Admittedly, the investigation is still in progress and has not yet been completed. The investigating agency is yet to examine the witnesses and collect the relevant materials. At this stage, it would be premature for this Court to undertake a meticulous examination of the merits of the allegations or to determine whether the offences are ultimately made out. It is well settled that, at the stage of registration of the FIR, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations contained in the complaints, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a thorough investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIRs at this nascent stage. 24. Thus, it is clear that the speech made by the accused clearly attracts the ingredients of the offence. A person who, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, utters any word intending that such word be heard by the woman concerned commits the offence. The 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 expression "any woman" occurring in Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not confined to a single named individual. It is sufficient if the words are directed at, and concern, an identifiable and ascertainable class or body of women. Therefore, the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced for quashing the FIR. 25. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 27. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; .............. xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; ............. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......” 28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 directed to complete the investigation in the respective Crime Nos.59 and 194 of 2026 and file the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already filed. 29. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Vv To 1. The Inspector of Police, CCB, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv 26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026 17.07.2026 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis