CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 12748 & 12749 of 2026 R.Natarajan, S/o. Rangarajan, No.3/1A, Sitharapatti, Manjarahalli Village and Post, Pannagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police B1-Dharmapuri Town Police Station, Dharmapuri-636 701, Dharmapuri District. (Crime No.306 of 2025) 2. P.Murugan, Village Administrative Officer(VAO), No.07, Virupakshipuram Revenue Village, Dharmapuri-636 705, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned Charge Sheet in CC.No.441 of 2026 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 ORDER The prayer in the Criminal Original Petition is to quash the final report in C.C.No.441 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri. 2. Upon perusal of the case, it can be seen that the gist of allegations is that when the petitioner appeared before the Collector for an inquiry with reference to a dispute among the family members, the Collector enquired about the petitioner / accused. It is represented that he worked as a Mediator in the RTO Office. Immediately, the Collector is said to have instructed everyone that this accused should not be permitted inside the RTO Office. Thereafter, the accused is said to have stopped the car of the Collector and attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on himself as to why he should not come to the RTO Office. 3. Mr.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not at all a Mediator, he only wanted to visit the place on account of the dispute in question. Further, the petitioner is also an Office https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 Bearer with reference to the Mini Bus Owners’ Association. The petitioner also has a permit and he only visits the Office for his personal purposes and not as a Mediator. Therefore, the entire premise, on which, the prosecution case is based by itself is false. Secondly, it is inherently improbable and this Court should interfere. In any event, it will not make out the offences mentioned under Sections 292, 126 and 132 of BNS. 4. Per Contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that apart from the offences mentioned in the final report in BNS, a new offence in Section 226 of BNS is now included with reference to this kind of persons making a threat of suicide in order to prevent the lawful exercise of power. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is not at all a Mediator. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. If the petitioner is a Mediator and if the Collector had said that he should not enter into the RTO office, then it is a right exercise of power by the Collector and challenging the same, if the petitioner has threatened to commit suicide, then certainly, there are materials against the petitioner to continue the trial. The contention of Mr.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 that the petitioner is not at all a Mediator. The same is factual in nature when the listed witnesses are repeatedly mentioning him as a Mediator and it is for the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses and establish that he never entered the RTO Office as a Mediator and he only entered for his personal purposes alone. The same is factual in nature and I cannot take it on face value and hold it as incontrovertible and quash the final report. Therefore, leaving open the petitioner to raise the defences during the course of the trial, the prayer in the Criminal Original Petition cannot be entertained and, as such, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 7. Considering the hardship pleaded, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court, except for the hearings insisted by the Trial Court, shall stand dispensed with. 20-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No KKN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Inspector of Police, B1-Dharmapuri Town Police Station, Dharmapuri-636 701, Dharmapuri District. 2. P.Murugan, Village Administrative Officer(VAO), No.07, Virupakshipuram Revenue Village, Dharmapuri-636 705, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. KKN CRL OP No. 19166 of 2026 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis