Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9021 (MAD)

V. Gowtham v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

CRL OP/7060/2026 · 2026-03-23

M Nirmal Kumar

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 5101 and 5102 of 2026 V. Gowtham ..Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep., by, The Inspector of Police Arni Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.634 of 2025 2. Malar ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to impugned charge sheet in CC.No.1214 of 2025 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Arni and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.Sunil Kumar R For Respondent: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1214 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arni. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case and is facing trial for the offence under Section 304 BNS. The primary contention of the petitioner is that even according to the defacto complainant, an unknown person came on a bike, snatched the chain, and fled. No test identification parade has been conducted and hence, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent strongly opposed the petitioner’s contention and submitted that the snatched chain was recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner is unable to give any reason for such recovery. Further the defacto complainant later identified the petitioner and there are sufficient materials available in this case. 4. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is evident that the objections raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside. In view of the same, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are factual in nature and are to be decided only during trial and not in this quash petition. 5. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 6. The observations made herein are only for the limited purpose of considering this petition. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23-03-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No AT To: 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Arni. 2. The Inspector of Police Arni Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AT CRL OP No. 7060 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 5101 and 5102 of 2026 23-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis