Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.310 of 2026 Abimanyu ...Petitioner Vs. 1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Viluppuram District. Crime No.695 of 2024. 2. Sivaranjini ...Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.695 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Viluppuram District and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl.Side), for R1 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.695 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the present complaint in Crime No.695 of 2024 came to be registered on the file of the 1st respondent as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 296(b), 75, 77, 78 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant herein are husband and wife and due to some matrimonial disputes, the present false and exaggerated complaint came to be registered and therefore, the 1st respondent/law enforcing agency is not able to file a final report till date, despite the complaint being lodged as early as on 12.07.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant loved each other and subsequently, they got married. However, as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community, 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 the 2nd respondent's family opposed their marriage and separated them and only due to the continuous coercion by her relatives, the 2nd respondent filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No.7 of 2024 before the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam and the present complaint as well. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that though the present complaint arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the petitioner uploaded abusive content against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her family members in social media and when the same was questioned by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. He further submitted that this is a case involving cybercrime and the investigation is pending since the 1st respondent needs to gather certain materials. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 6. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, particularly the impugned FIR, it is seen that the petitioner uploaded obscene pictures of the 2nd respondent in social media and he also threatened her with dire consequences. 7. Further, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this is a case involving cybercrime. That apart, the complaint has been made only on 12.07.2024 and the investigation is going on. Except a bald averment that the complaint is an exaggerated and false one, no other ground, much less a valid ground has been made out by the petitioner for the quashment of the impugned FIR. Superadded, the petitioner has not established that the complaint is vitiated by mala fides or it was lodged with an oblique motive of defaming him. 8. Hence, this Court is of the view that investigation has to perforce go on in order to find out the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner and this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while dealing with a petition seeking quashment of the FIR. To put it differently, this Court cannot embark upon 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 9. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR at this juncture. 10. As a sequitur, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.01.2026 skt Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To: 1. The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Viluppuram District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. skt Crl.OP.No.574 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.310 of 2026 12.01.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis