Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53796 (MAD)

N.Raju v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

CRL OP/18502/2026 · 2026-07-14

D Bharatha Chakravarthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 and CRL.MP.No.12304 of 2026 N.Raju ..Petitioner Vs. 1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.38 of 2026.) 2. Mirthu Varshini B.S. ..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.38 of 2026 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.38 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent Police, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 75(2) of BNS and 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. 2. The prayer sought in this petition is innocuous in nature, and as such, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, without ordering notice to the second respondent. 3. The specific allegations and acts attributed to the petitioner are clearly described in the FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is merely a cab driver and that a false case has been foisted against him. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are purely factual in nature, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 stage in a petition to quash the FIR. These aspects must be dispassionately considered by the investigating authority during the course of investigation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved after the submission of the final report, it is open to him to take such steps in the manner known to law or face trial and establish his innocence. 7. However, taking into consideration the hardship pleaded by the petitioner, this Court directs the first respondent Police to expedite and complete the investigation in Crime No.38 of 2026 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a web-copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the final report in a manner known to law, in the event if it is filed adversely against him. 8. With the above directions, this criminal original petition stands disposed of. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No Sni https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Sni To 1.The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRL.OP.No.18502 of 2026 14-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis