K.Saravanakumar v. State by The Inspector of Police Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur

CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page1 of 12IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMARCRL OP No. 15519 of 2026K.Saravanakumar..Petitioner(s)Vs1.State byThe Inspector of PoliceMangalam Police Station,Tiruppur.Crime No.215 of 20262.Hakkeem..Respondent(s)Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records of FIR in Crime No.215 of 2026 dated 10.06.2026 on the file of 1st respondent herein and quash the same.For Petitioner(s):Mr.N.Manokaranfor Mr.N.PonrajFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.RajasekaranCounsel for Government of Tamil Nadu(Criminal Side)Mr.R.T.L.Chandar for R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page2 of 12ORDERThe petitioner/accused in Crime No.215 of 2016 on the file of the respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 281, 125(a) and 110 BNS, has filed the present quash petition.2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.06.2026, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant appeared before the respondent Police and lodged a complaint stating that, on 10.06.2026 at about 07.00 p.m., when we was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-42-R-9038 from Mangalam to Palladam Road, from West to East direction, near Sankara Snacks Shop, a Car bearing Registration No.TN-37-DH-9119 coming from Palladam towards Mangalam, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two wheeler. Due to the said impact, the 2nd respondent sustained injuries on his hand and hip. The petitioner, who was driving the Car, was drunk. Hence, the complaint. Pursuant to the complaint, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.215 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 281, 125(a) and 110 BNS as against the petitioner. To quash the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page3 of 123.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was apprehended by the respondent Police based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and thereafter, he was taken to Tiruppur Government Medical College Hospital and was examined. It was recorded that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and hence, he was remanded in this case. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the records show that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, but was not under the influence of alcohol. The learned counsel further submitted that, during remand, the de facto complainant had appeared and confirmed that he saw a Scorpio Car driven by the petitioner coming in a high speed and hence, he moved to the left side of the road, slipped and fell down and there was no impact between the two vehicles and there was no damage to his vehicle also. Despite the same, the Court had remanded the petitioner. The de facto complainant, finding that the petitioner had been remanded for no fault of him, and since there was no impact of vehicle and accident, has come forward to withdraw the complaint. 4.The affidavit of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is produced before this Court, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder : https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page8 of 125.Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, continuation of the criminal case as against the petitioner is a futile exercise and prayed for quashing of the same. 6.Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police produced the Certificate of Drunkenness and further, submitted that the petitioner’s blood and urine samples have been taken for analysis and sent to Coimbatore Government Hospital. He submitted that the petitioner is the Commissioner of Municipal Commissioner and though he was drunk, the Medical Certificate shows that he was not under the influence of alcohol. 7.The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant appeared before this Court, who is identified by Mr.C.Kannan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur. On enquiry, he confirmed that he saw the petitioner’s vehicle coming with a high speed and hence, he moved aside, slipped and fell down and he had no serious injuries. There was no damage to his vehicle. Since he was suffering from pain, he had gone to a private nursing home and took treatment. This fact, he had also informed before the remanding Magistrate. Further, in support of his affidavit, he further reiterated that he is not inclined to proceed with the case against the petitioner and he had also given https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page9 of 12a letter to the respondent Police for withdrawal of the case. 8.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner might have had consumed alcohol, but he was not under the influence of alcohol. That is the medical report. Further, driving a vehicle consuming alcohol might be an offence under Sections 281 and 125(a) BNS, but not under Section 110 IPC. Further, now, the de facto complainant himself had appeared and reiterated that there was no impact of vehicles and there was no accident. In view of the same, this Court finds that, continuation of the proceedings will serve no purpose and it is only an abuse of process of law. 9.One important issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page10 of 12overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 10.However, in the present case, the offence in question is a road accident, no vehicles damaged, no one injured. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner.11.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioner in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant shall form part of the records.12.It is informed that the petitioner is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore. In view of the quashing of the FIR as against the petitioner, the petitioner is ordered to set at liberty. 18-06-2026MKNIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoNote to Registry : Issue order copy on 19.06.2026. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page11 of 12To1.The Inspector of Police Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15519 of 2026__________Page12 of 12M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.MKNCRL OP No. 15519 of 202618-06-2026