Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5049 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3670 and 3671 of 2025

Anand

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Madurai.

Crime No.23/2022.

.... Respondents / Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records connected with the case in

C.C.No. 601 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate I, Madurai and quash the same as illegal as against the

petitioner.

For Petitioners: Mr A.Prabhu Raj

For Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

1/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition projects a deeply

disturbing narrative touching the integrity of the law-enforcement

machinery itself. The allegations are not directed against an ordinary

citizen, but against a police officer who, according to the prosecution,

was entrusted with the solemn duty of combating serious crimes and

tracing offenders. The accusation, in essence, is that the guardian of

law himself became the manipulator of criminal process, the

custodian of seized properties transformed into their clandestine

possessor, and the protector of justice allegedly converted into its

violator.

2. Simultaneously, the petitioner projects an equally serious

allegation of institutional victimisation, contending that he has been

selectively implicated upon fabricated narratives woven through

contradictions, hearsay statements, procedural irregularities and

belated allegations unsupported by legally admissible material.

3. Thus, this Court is called upon to examine whether the

present prosecution deserves to be interdicted at the threshold in

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS

corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., or whether the allegations

disclose a prima facie case warranting a full-fledged trial.

4. This Court heard the elaborate submissions advanced on

either side and meticulously perused the entire materials placed

before it including the FIR, final report, sanction proceedings,

witness statements, typed set of papers and written arguments.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while

serving as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Serious Crime

Squad, Madurai District, functioned as head of a special police team

engaged in tracing absconding offenders and recovering properties

connected with criminal cases.

6. According to the prosecution, during the course of

investigation in Kallikudi Police Station Crime No.202 of 2021

relating to counterfeit currency offences, substantial quantities of

counterfeit currency notes and allied materials were seized from

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

accused persons. However, the petitioner allegedly failed to hand

over the entirety of such seized properties to the Investigating Officer

and instead clandestinely retained a portion thereof. It is further

alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied a dilapidated

old Sub-Inspector quarters situated behind Thirumangalam Town

Police Station and had been exclusively using the said premises for

more than two years.

7. The prosecution would further state that acting upon secret

information and superior instructions, a special search team headed

by one Mr.A.Babu Prashanth, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

conducted a raid on 23.05.2022 in the said premises and allegedly

recovered: (i) Counterfeit currency notes amounting to Rs.

1,45,50,000/-;(ii)Large quantities of paper bundles cut to the size of

currency notes;(iii)Old newspaper bundles;(iv)Certain genuine

currency notes allegedly intended to facilitate circulation of

counterfeit notes.

8. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner admitted

during enquiry that the seized materials pertained to properties

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

connected with Kallikudi Police Station Crime No.202 of 2021. Apart

from the counterfeit currency episode, the prosecution further

alleges that during investigation relating to Kallikudi Police Station

Crime No.1535 of 2020, the petitioner illegally detained one

Punniyamoorthy, demanded and received Rs.25,00,000/- from his

wife for securing his release and thereafter misappropriated

substantial portions of the said amount while only partially

accounting for certain sums through police records.

9. The prosecution also relies upon:(i)Statements of witnesses

including police personnel; (ii) Statements of private witnesses

including the wife and daughter of Punniyamoorthy;(iii)Alleged

suspicious bank transactions;(iv)Recovery proceedings;(v)Forensic

Science Laboratory report confirming counterfeit nature of currency

notes;(vi)Sanction proceedings under Section 197 Cr.P.C./Section

218 BNSS.

10. Based on the above allegations, the respondent police filed

final report for offences under Sections 409, 420, 489-C, 448, 406,

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

225-A and 346 IPC in C.C.No.601 of 2025 before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

Grounds for quash:

11. The petitioner seeks quashment primarily on the following

grounds:

(i) The entire prosecution is fabricated and maliciously

instituted;

(ii) The petitioner was not the Investigating Officer in Crime

Nos.202 of 2021 and 1535 of 2020;

(iii) The FIR and 161(3) statements contain glaring

contradictions regarding the actual officers who conducted vehicle

checks and seizure proceedings;

(iv) No legally valid seizure mahazar was prepared during the

alleged raid in the dilapidated quarters;

(v) The quarters allegedly belonged to the police department

and were not under the exclusive possession of the petitioner;

(vi) The FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of nearly

six months;

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

(vii) The alleged confession attributed to the petitioner is

neither recorded nor annexed to the charge sheet;

(viii) Material witnesses including certain Investigating Officers

were not cited as prosecution witnesses;

(ix) The alleged bank deposits represented customary monetary

gifts received during the ear-piercing ceremony of the petitioner's

daughter;

(x) Ingredients of Sections 409, 489-C, 225-A and 346 IPC are

not attracted;

(xi) The prosecution is vitiated for want of valid sanction.

Arguments on either side:

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the prosecution case is inherently

improbable and self-destructive. According to the learned counsel,

the foundational allegation in Crime No.202 of 2021 itself establishes

that the vehicle interception, seizure of counterfeit currency and

preparation of mahazars were all carried out by Inspector of Police

Tmt. Radha Mahesh and her station personnel and not by the

petitioner.

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

13. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court

to the FIR narration and the recovery mahazar in Crime No.202 of

2021 and submit that the subsequent 161(3) statements attempting

to attribute the seizure to the petitioner constitute glaring

improvements and contradictions rendering the entire prosecution

wholly unreliable. It is further argued that the alleged search

conducted on 23.05.2022 was itself legally suspect inasmuch as

officers from Sivakasi Sub-Division allegedly conducted a raid

beyond their territorial jurisdiction without producing any written

authorisation.

14. The learned counsel would further submit that the alleged

recovery from the old police quarters is unsupported by any

contemporaneous seizure mahazar, videographic evidence or lawful

search proceedings. The learned counsel also contended that the

prosecution itself admits that the quarters belonged to the police

department and were under control of superior authorities and

therefore mere recovery from such premises cannot automatically

establish conscious possession by the petitioner so as to attract

Section 489-C IPC.

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

15. With regard to Crime No.1535 of 2020, it is contended that

the petitioner had absolutely no official role and that all recoveries

and confessional statements were officially attributed to other police

officers including SI Manickam and SI Ramar. The learned counsel

would submit that the prosecution is attempting to rewrite official

police records retrospectively through oral statements.

16. It is further argued that the allegations relating to wrongful

confinement and illegal gratification are entirely unsupported by

legally admissible contemporaneous records. The learned counsel

would also submit that the six months delay in registration of FIR

completely destroys the credibility of the prosecution version.

17. Reliance was also placed upon the principles laid down in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

to contend that the present

prosecution squarely falls within the category of malicious and

abuse-of-process proceedings warranting quashment.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

18. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)

would strongly oppose the petition. According to the prosecution, the

petitioner functioned as head of a special team and deliberately

avoided filing special reports while causing local station officers to

formally record recoveries as though conducted by them.

19. It is contended that the contradictions highlighted by the

petitioner are matters relating to evidentiary appreciation and cannot

constitute grounds for quashing criminal proceedings at the

threshold. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the

search team recovered enormous quantities of counterfeit currency

from premises exclusively used by the petitioner and such recovery

stands scientifically corroborated through forensic examination.

20. It is further contended that multiple police officers as well

as independent witnesses have spoken about the petitioner's

exclusive occupation of the premises and his involvement in the

seizure and concealment of counterfeit notes. The prosecution would

further submit that statements of the wife and daughter of

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

Punniyamoorthy specifically implicate the petitioner in receipt of Rs.

25 lakhs for securing unlawful release.

21. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that

the suspicious opening of a fresh bank account and subsequent cash

transactions probabilise the prosecution allegations. According to the

prosecution, all the contentions raised by the petitioner constitute

disputed questions of fact requiring trial and cross-examination and

cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The

learned Government Advocate therefore prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

22. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

23. The principal point that arises for consideration is whether

the materials collected by the prosecution prima facie disclose the

commission of cognizable offences warranting continuation of

criminal proceedings, or whether the prosecution is so inherently

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

absurd, malicious or legally untenable as to justify quashing under

Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

24. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528

BNSS is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly,

cautiously and only in rarest cases where continuation of

prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. At the stage of

quashment, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or

meticulously appreciate disputed factual issues. If the materials

collected during investigation prima facie disclose ingredients of

offences, the criminal prosecution ordinarily should not be

interdicted.

25. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has succeeded in

demonstrating certain inconsistencies between the FIR in Crime No.

202 of 2021 and subsequent witness statements. The FIR attributes

the vehicle check and seizure proceedings to Inspector Radha

Mahesh and station personnel, whereas certain later statements

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

indicate that the operational role was actually performed by the

petitioner and his special team.

26. However, the prosecution explanation is that the petitioner,

being head of a district special team, habitually caused station

officers to formally record recoveries as though made by them.

Whether such explanation is truthful or fabricated cannot be

conclusively determined in a petition under Section 528 BNSS.

Contradictions, embellishments and improvements ordinarily

constitute matters for appreciation during trial.

27. The prosecution alleges recovery of counterfeit currency

worth Rs.1,45,50,000/- from quarters allegedly under the

petitioner's exclusive use. The petitioner disputes exclusive

possession and points out that the building belonged to the police

department. However, the prosecution relies upon statements of

multiple police officers asserting that the premises were exclusively

used by the petitioner and his team for more than two years.

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

28. The Forensic Science Laboratory report confirming

counterfeit nature of the notes further strengthens the prosecution

case at the prima facie stage. The question whether the petitioner

had conscious possession and requisite knowledge under Section

489-C IPC is fundamentally a matter for trial.

29. The prosecution theory is that the petitioner unofficially

handled recoveries in connected criminal cases and diverted portions

thereof for personal gain. The petitioner relies heavily upon official

recovery records prepared by other police officers. However, the

prosecution specifically alleges that such official records were

themselves engineered by the petitioner through unofficial

operational control exercised by him.

30. Statements of witnesses including police personnel and

private witnesses are relied upon to substantiate such allegations.

Whether such allegations are ultimately proved is a matter of

evidence. At this juncture, this Court cannot record a definitive

finding that the allegations are inherently impossible.

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

31. The FIR admittedly came to be registered after considerable

delay. Nevertheless, the prosecution explanation is that initial

enquiry, internal verification and collection of departmental

information preceded registration. Mere delay in registration of FIR,

by itself, cannot automatically annihilate the prosecution

particularly when allegations involve police misconduct and internal

enquiries.

32. The petitioner attacked the legality of the search on the

ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of written

authorisation. However, the prosecution has specifically stated that

superior officers directed officers from another district to conduct

enquiry in order to avoid local influence and institutional shielding.

Whether procedural irregularities occurred during the search is

again a matter for evidence and cannot presently demolish the

prosecution in toto.

33. The prosecution relies upon witness statements to allege

illegal detention and release of accused persons upon receipt of

money. The petitioner disputes the same entirely. The ingredients of

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

Sections 346 and 225-A IPC cannot presently be held absent on the

face of the record. The witness statements, if accepted during trial,

are capable of attracting such offences.

34. The records reveal that sanction for prosecution has

already been accorded by the competent authority through

proceedings dated 12.02.2025 after consideration of materials

collected during investigation. Thus, the contention regarding total

absence of sanction is factually unsustainable. Whether the sanction

order ultimately withstands judicial scrutiny is a matter to be tested

before the trial Court.

35. Though the petitioner invoked the celebrated principles in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2

, this Court is unable to conclude

that the present case falls within the exceptional categories

warranting quashment. The allegations are grave in nature. The

prosecution has collected witness statements, forensic materials,

documentary evidence and financial transaction details.

21992 Supp(1) SCC 335

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

36. The defence projected by the petitioner raises substantial

disputed factual issues which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in

inherent jurisdiction proceedings. Allegations against police officers

occupy a peculiar constitutional space. A police officer is not merely

a government servant. He represents the visible arm of the State.

When allegations emerge that the machinery intended to suppress

crime itself became a participant in criminality, the judicial response

cannot be one of premature interdiction unless the prosecution is

demonstrably absurd or legally impossible.

37. Simultaneously, courts must remain vigilant against

motivated prosecution targeting police officers who may have fallen

victim to institutional rivalries. Yet, the balancing exercise cannot

culminate in judicial burial of a prosecution which discloses prima

facie material requiring evidentiary adjudication.

38. The contradictions highlighted by the petitioner may

indeed constitute valuable ammunition during trial. The petitioner is

undoubtedly entitled to rigorously cross-examine prosecution

witnesses and expose inconsistencies. However, those aspects belong

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

to the domain of trial and not to the narrow jurisdiction under

Section 528 BNSS. This Court therefore finds that the materials

collected by the prosecution disclose prima facie commission of

cognizable offences requiring full-fledged adjudication before the

competent criminal Court.

39. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

However, considering the nature of service of the petitioner and the

submissions made, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai,

shall consider any application for dispensation of personal

appearance on its own merits and in accordance with law.

40. It is made clear that all observations made in this order are

purely for the purpose of deciding the present quash petition and

shall not influence the trial Court while independently appreciating

the evidence during trial.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate I,

Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Madurai.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.5049 of 2025

01.06.2026

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis