T.Rajivgandhi v. The State

Crl.O.P.No.3115 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.02.2026CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRACrl.O.P.No.3115 of 2026and Crl.M.P.No.2149 of 2026T.Rajivgandhi... PetitionerVs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur District.

The Sub- Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur District. 2. Magandhieran, The Village Administrative Officer, Olaippadi, Additional Perumathur South Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.357 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.G.IlamuruguFor R1& R2:Mr.S.SanthoshGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side)1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3115 of 2026

O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.357 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other persons who are all the general public of Perumathur Kudikadu Village, gathered together and put up obstructions by using sticks (bamboo sticks) on 22.10.2025 at about 7 p.m and thus, caused law and order issue and in such circumstances, the 3rd respondent being the Village Administrative Officer, gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent on 31.08.2025 that the property comprised in Natham Survey No.333/6 classified as Natham of Perumathur South Village was encroached by the villagers by putting up fencing wire, which was removed on 12.09.2025 and without any right or title, the villagers had committed the above said alleged offence and hence, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 329(3) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, in Crime No.357/2025 on the file of the respondent police.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was actually present at the scene of occurrence and since he 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3115 of 2026participated in the peace committee meeting, his name was included in the FIR. Hence, he prayed to quash the First Information Report pending against the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents one and two would submit that, the petitioner along with other accused, encroached on the Government land and put up a fence around it and when it was questioned by the de facto complainant/Village Administrative Officer, the petitioner, along with other accused, threatened him. He would submit that the case is at a nascent stage of investigation and cannot be quashed at the initial stage. He reiterated that the investigation is at still at a preliminary stage and that the case requires a thorough investigation and therefore, this Court cannot interdict the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, he objected to quash the case against the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record and taking note of the fact that the name of the petitioner is found in the FIR and whether he was present in the scene of occurrence or not is a matter for investigation and 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3115 of 2026that the investigation is at a nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation and does not find any merit in this petition to quash the First Information Report.