Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 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.19949 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.16797 and 16798 of 2025

Bharathi @ Manivanna Bharathi

... Petitioner/Accused No.2

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

CB CID - OCU police station,

Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirapalli district.

Crime no. 1 of 2021.

....1

st

Respondent /

Complainant

2. Tamil Maran

.... 2

nd

Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and quash the Charge Sheet in

S.T.C.No.2018 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District, in so far as the

petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Ilayaraja

For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition projects before this

Court a delicate yet significant question touching the contours of

electoral offences, the evidentiary sanctity of confessional

statements, the permissible scope of multiple final reports arising

out of a singular First Information Report, and the statutory

limitation governing prosecutions under Chapter IX-A of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession and an

office bearer of a political party, seeks invocation of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the

proceedings in S.T.C.No.2018 of 2025 pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

3. The gravamen of the accusation against the petitioner is

that during the 2021 Assembly Election campaign, he allegedly

mobilized funds and paid gratification to police personnel attached to

Tiruchirappalli City Police with an intention connected to electoral

processes, thereby attracting the offence under Section 171-E IPC.

4. The petitioner would contend that the entire prosecution

rests solely upon the confession of a co-accused, bereft of any

independent corroborative material, and that even the allegations

accepted in toto would not satisfy the ingredients of “bribery” as

contemplated under Sections 171-B and 171-E IPC.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the final report, is that

during the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections of the year

2021, credible information was received by the higher police

authorities that money was being distributed to various persons in

Tiruchirappalli City for electoral purposes. Pursuant thereto, Flying

Squads and special inspection teams were constituted by the

Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

6. On 27.03.2021, inspections were conducted in different

police stations within Tiruchirappalli City limits, including Thillai

Nagar Police Station and Government Hospital Police Station. During

the inspection at Thillai Nagar Police Station, an amount of Rs.

24,000/- was allegedly recovered from A-1, who was then serving as

a police writer/Special Sub-Inspector attached to the said police

station.

7. According to the prosecution, upon enquiry, A-1 confessed

that the said amount had been handed over by the petitioner herein

along with certain other Advocates belonging to a political party. The

prosecution would further allege that the petitioner, being an office

bearer of a political party, had mobilized funds and decided to pay

Rs.2,000/- each to police personnel attached to Tiruchirappalli City

Police.

8. It is further alleged that on 24.03.2021, the petitioner had

paid a sum of Rs.24,000/- to A-1 towards distribution to twelve

police personnel. On the strength of the said seizure and the

confession attributed to A-1, the respondent police registered the

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

case and ultimately laid a final report against A-1 and the

petitioner/A-2 for offences under Section 171-E IPC and allied

provisions.

Grounds for quash:

9. Assailing the prosecution, the petitioner has raised multiple

grounds seeking quashment of the proceedings.

10. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the

allegations in the charge sheet, even if accepted at face value, do not

attract the ingredients of Section 171-E IPC. It is contended that

Section 171-E IPC merely prescribes punishment, whereas the

substantive ingredients are embedded in Section 171-B IPC dealing

with “bribery”.

11. According to the petitioner, in order to constitute the

offence of bribery under Section 171-B IPC, the prosecution must

necessarily establish that gratification was given or offered to a

person for exercising an electoral right or for having exercised such

right.

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

12. The petitioner would submit that the alleged payment, even

according to the prosecution, was made to police personnel and not

to voters or electors. It is further contended that there is absolutely

no allegation that any voter was induced or attempted to be induced

to exercise electoral franchise in a particular manner.

13. The petitioner would further submit that the entire

prosecution rests solely upon the alleged confession of A-1, which is

inadmissible in evidence insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The

petitioner would also contend that there is no recovery from him, no

witness speaking about any payment by him, no call detail records,

no bank transactions, no electronic evidence, and no independent

material linking him with the seized amount.

14. It is further contended that the petitioner, being an

Advocate and an office bearer of a political party, was actively

engaged in election-related activities and was frequently visiting

police stations for obtaining permissions and coordinating campaign-

related matters and that the same has been converted into a criminal

accusation.

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

15. The petitioner has also raised the issue of limitation by

contending that the alleged occurrence is of March 2021, whereas

the final report has been laid after nearly five years, though the

offence under Section 171-E IPC is punishable only with

imprisonment up to one year. The petitioner has additionally

questioned the legality of laying two separate final reports arising out

of a single FIR.

Arguments on either side:

16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely due to his

political affiliation and election-related activities. The learned counsel

submitted that the seizure was admittedly effected from A-1 on

27.03.2021, whereas the alleged payment is said to have been made

on 24.03.2021, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the

prosecution story itself.

17. It was argued that except the confession of A-1, there is no

legally admissible evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged

offence. The learned counsel further submitted that a confession of a

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

co-accused cannot by itself form the basis for prosecution in the

absence of independent corroboration.

18. It was further argued that the ingredients of Section 171-B

IPC are conspicuously absent and therefore prosecution under

Section 171-E IPC is legally unsustainable. The learned counsel also

assailed the prosecution on the ground that though there was one

FIR, two separate final reports had been filed in relation to two police

stations. It was finally submitted that continuation of the

prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law warranting

interference under Section 528 BNSS.

19. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the allegations disclose a serious electoral offence

involving police personnel during the election period. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the confession of A-1

clearly implicates the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner

was an active office bearer of a political party and was directly

involved in election campaign activities. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor further submitted that the question whether the

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

petitioner actually handed over the money or whether the confession

is admissible are all matters to be decided during trial.

20. With respect to limitation, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had already obtained

extension of time for taking cognizance and therefore the proceedings

are maintainable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also

submitted that though the FIR was common, the occurrences related

to two distinct police stations and therefore separate final reports

were justified.

21. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Points for consideration:

22. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points

arise for consideration:-

i. Whether the allegations in the final report satisfy the

ingredients of Sections 171-B and 171-E IPC?

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

ii. Whether the prosecution against the petitioner is based

solely upon the confession of a co-accused?

iii. Whether the filing of separate final reports arising from one

FIR vitiates the prosecution?

iv. Whether the proceedings are barred by limitation?

v. Whether the present case warrants exercise of inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

23. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528

BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., is intended to prevent

abuse of process of Court and secure the ends of justice. The

principles governing quashment have been authoritatively laid down

in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court catalogued categories of cases where interference would be

justified. One such category is where the allegations, even if accepted

in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

24. Section 171-E IPC is merely the penal provision prescribing

punishment for bribery. The substantive offence is defined under

Section 171-B IPC. A careful reading of Section 171-B IPC reveals

that bribery is attracted only when gratification is given or accepted

for exercising electoral rights or influencing electoral franchise.

Therefore, there must exist a direct nexus between the gratification

and the exercise of electoral right.

25. In the present case, even according to the prosecution, the

alleged recipients were police personnel and not electors. The

prosecution materials do not disclose that any voter was bribed or

induced. Equally absent is any allegation that the police personnel

themselves were being induced in exercise of any electoral right.

Mere allegation of payment of money during election period, without

demonstrating linkage to electoral franchise, cannot automatically

attract Section 171-B IPC. Criminal statutes must receive strict

construction and ingredients of the offence cannot be presumed by

inference or political atmosphere.

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

26. The entire prosecution against the petitioner appears to

rest upon the alleged confession of A-1. It is trite law that confession

of a co-accused is not substantive evidence. In the absence of

independent corroboration, a co-accused confession cannot by itself

sustain prosecution. The records placed before this Court do not

disclose any recovery from the petitioner. No independent witness

has spoken about payment by the petitioner. No documentary,

electronic or circumstantial evidence has been produced to connect

the petitioner with the seized amount. Thus, continuation of

prosecution solely on the basis of the alleged confession would be

legally precarious.

27. The contention regarding two final reports arising out of

one FIR also merits consideration. Though the prosecution would

contend that the recoveries relate to different police stations, the FIR

appears to stem from a singular transaction involving alleged

distribution of money during election period. Ordinarily, multiplicity

of final reports arising out of one FIR must satisfy the test of

distinctness of occurrence and separability of transactions.

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

28. However, in the present case, this Court refrains from

rendering any conclusive finding on that aspect in view of the

primary conclusion already reached regarding absence of ingredients

of the offence itself.

29. The offence under Section 171-E IPC is punishable with

imprisonment extending up to one year. Prima facie, the plea of

limitation raised by the petitioner deserves consideration. Though

the prosecution claims that extension for taking cognizance had been

obtained, the records relating thereto have not been elaborately

placed before this Court. Nevertheless, in view of the finding that the

ingredients of the offence are themselves absent, this Court does not

propose to delve deeper into the issue of limitation.

Epilogue:

30. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become a weapon for

roping in individuals merely on account of political association,

unless the foundational ingredients of the offence stand

demonstrably satisfied. Elections undoubtedly constitute the

lifeblood of democracy and electoral purity must be zealously

protected. Equally, however, criminal prosecution cannot survive on

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

suspicion, political overtones or uncorroborated confessional

statements.

31. The criminal justice system rests not upon conjecture, but

upon legally admissible foundational material capable of disclosing

the commission of a cognizable offence. In the considered view of this

Court, the allegations in the final report, even if accepted in their

entirety, fail to satisfy the ingredients of bribery under Section 171-B

IPC and consequently prosecution under Section 171-E IPC against

the petitioner cannot be sustained. Continuation of the proceedings

against the petitioner would therefore amount to abuse of process of

Court.

32. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

allowed. The proceedings in S.T.C.No.2018 of 2025 on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli

District, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner/A-2 is

concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,

Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

CB CID - ocu police station,

Tiruchirappallai district.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.19949 of 2025

01.06.2026

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