CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.12800 & 12801 of 2026 Deen @ Deen Mohamed ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police Muthupettai Police Station, Tiruvarur. Cr.No.396/2006. 2. Sekar ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in P.R.C.No.25 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi and Quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner(s): Mr.I. Abdul Basith For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R1 ORDER The prayer in the criminal original petition is to quash the proceedings in PRC No.25 of 2021 as against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 6th accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 2.Upon perusing the First Information Report, the materials collected during the investigation and the final report, the gist of allegation is that the petitioner and others, in an inebriated mode, entered into a cinema theatre and damaged the theatre, armed with deadly weapons such as iron rods and other materials and threatened to stop the further screening of the film. The occurrence is said to have happened on 17.12.2006. This Court has considered the issue with reference to the identically situated accused in Crl.O.P.No.12720 and 12800 of 2025. After considering the delay and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation given by the prosecution and the nature of accusations and the materials collected etc., ultimately this Court concluded that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay is such that so as to interfere with the right to speedy trial of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3.The learned counsel pleads that this accused is also identically situated as that as the petitioner in the said criminal original petition. 4.I have perused the material records of the case and there is no difference with reference to the role played or any other background or particulars with reference to the present petitioner also. I am also of the view that when the occurrence is of the year 2006, now permitting the case to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 proceed against the petitioner after a period of 20 years, considering the nature of allegations, would be oppressive and would also be violative of the right to speedy trial of the accused the petitioner herein. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) in spite of his best efforts could not point out any distinction between the petitioner and the other accused, against whom, the case is already quashed. 6.In view thereof, this Crl.O.P.No.19255 of 2026 shall stand allowed. The proceedings in PRC No.25 of 2021 shall stand quashed as against the petitioner /6th accused. While considering this case, it can be seen that the position is same with reference to the other accused, against whom, the case is not quashed also. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending with reference to the other accused also. In view thereof, PRCNo.25 of 2021 shall stand quashed in its entirety. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 23-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No sms https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. 2. The Inspector of Police Muthupettai Police Station, Tiruvarur. Cr.No.396/2006. 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sms CRL OP No. 19255 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.12800 & 12801 of 2026 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis