Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 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.21404 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.18399 of 2025

1. Subramani

2. Logeswaran

... Petitioners/Accused

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Chithamanipatty Police Station,

Karur District.

Crime No.276/2020. .... Respondent / Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the final report in S.C.

No. 9 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Principal District Court,

Karur District and to Quash the same as against the petitioners /A1

and A2 are concerned.

For Petitioners: Mr. S.Nagarajan

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

ORDER

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition invokes the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.9 of 2025

pending on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Karur

District.

2. The petitioners, arrayed as A-1 and A-2, seek quashment of

the prosecution launched for the alleged offences under Sections

273, 328 and 285 IPC corresponding to Sections 275, 123 and 287 of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes

and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the

Explosives Act, 1884.

3. The case presents an intersection between public health

concerns arising out of alleged possession of prohibited tobacco

products and issues relating to storage of explosives and fireworks.

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

The petitioners seek to project the prosecution as legally untenable

and procedurally defective, whereas the prosecution asserts that the

allegations disclose grave public safety concerns warranting a full-

fledged trial.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.10.2020 at

about 3.30 p.m., the respondent police, along with the Sub-Inspector

of Police and police personnel attached to the station, were on patrol

duty covering Chinthamanipatti, Mylampatti and Tharagampatti

areas. According to the prosecution, the police party received secret

information that the first petitioner was illegally storing prohibited

tobacco products and explosive materials in his farmhouse situated

at Servaikaranoor Village.

5. Acting upon such information, the respondent police

conducted a search in the farmhouse belonging to the first petitioner

and allegedly recovered the following articles:

(i) 50 flower pots in 78 bundles totalling 3900 pieces;

(ii) 10 jute crackers containing 2500 crackers;

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

(iii) single jute crackers containing 10,000 crackers;

(iv) 78 big paper crackers;

(v) 60 small paper crackers;

(vi) 10 jute big crackers;

(vii) 168 kilograms of Vimal betel nut products;

(viii) Hans tobacco products in 25 bags; and

(ix) loose Hans tobacco products weighing 107 kilograms.

6. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners were found to be

in illegal possession of inflammable explosive substances and

prohibited tobacco products without lawful authority and in violation

of statutory provisions. Based upon the alleged recovery, the

respondent police registered Crime No.276 of 2020 for offences under

Sections 273, 328 and 285 IPC and Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes

and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the

Explosives Act, 1884.

7. The petitioners were arrested and later released on bail.

Upon completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithalai, and the

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

same was thereafter committed to the learned Principal District

Court, Karur District, where it has been taken on file in S.C.No.9 of

2025.

Grounds for quash:

8. The petitioners challenge the prosecution principally on the

following grounds:

(i) that the respondent police, who acted as the informant, had

also undertaken investigation, thereby vitiating the entire

prosecution;

(ii) that the first petitioner possessed a valid LE-5 licence for

storage and sale of fireworks and crackers;

(iii) that the seized materials were not subjected to forensic or

chemical examination;

(iv) that the alleged tobacco products were not scientifically

tested to establish that they were prohibited substances;

(v) that Section 328 IPC is wholly inapplicable in the absence of

administration of poisonous or intoxicating substances to any

person;

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

(vi) that Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco

Products Act, 2003, is not attracted in the absence of allegations

relating to sale to minors or sale near educational institutions;

(vii) that the second petitioner has been falsely implicated

without any overt act or material; and

(viii) that the final report has been filed belatedly and is

therefore barred by limitation.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that,

insofar as cigarette and tobacco products are concerned, the same

were not sent for chemical analysis. By drawing the attention of this

Court to paragraph No.6 of the order of this court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.

19243 of 2024 dated 17.12.2025, the learned counsel contended

that, in the absence of any analyst report, the invocation of Section

328 IPC is unsustainable.

10. The learned counsel further read Section 328 IPC and

submitted that the essential ingredients required for attracting the

offence are not made out in the present case. It was also contended

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

that only police officials have been cited as witnesses in respect of

the alleged seizure.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the first petitioner possessed a valid licence for storage of

explosives. It was submitted that the licence had been renewed, and

that the licence had in fact been granted. It was specifically

contended that the licence was for storage of explosives.

12. The learned counsel further submitted that the licence

had subsequently been extended. It was also pointed out that the

charge sheet came to be filed only in the year 2024. The learned

counsel additionally submitted that the allegation pertains only to

packets of paan masala and that the prosecution has not properly

explained the basis for invoking the alleged offences.

13. It was further contended that Section 273 IPC would not

apply in the absence of any allegation relating to sale of noxious food

or drink. Equally, Section 328 IPC would not apply unless there is an

allegation of administering poisonous or intoxicating substances to

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

another person with intention to cause hurt. The learned counsel

therefore sought quashment of the entire proceedings.

14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted

that chemical analysis is not necessary for the purpose of attracting

Section 328 IPC. According to the learned Government Advocate, the

petitioners’ counsel had failed to bring to the notice of this Court the

true scope and ingredients of Section 328 IPC.

15. The learned Government Advocate read Section 328 IPC

and submitted that “hurt” is the most important ingredient under

the provision. It was contended that the use of tobacco products

would definitely cause hurt to any individual. The learned

Government Advocate further submitted that even the Central

Government regularly issues advertisements in cinema theatres

warning that the consumption of gutka and tobacco products causes

cancer and other dangerous diseases.

16. The learned Government Advocate therefore contended that

Section 328 IPC would squarely apply even in the absence of any

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

chemical analysis report. It was further argued that gutka would fall

within the category of intoxicating substances.

17. By referring to the seizure mahazar, the learned

Government Advocate submitted that explosives had also been seized

in the present case. It was argued that the seizure was not effected

solely in the presence of police officials, but that two independent

witnesses from the locality had been called and that the seizure was

conducted in their presence.

18. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that,

though the petitioner may possess a licence, the explosives ought to

have been stored only in a licensed premises. In the present case,

according to the prosecution, the explosives were stored in a

farmhouse and not in a licensed cracker shop or authorised storage

premises.

19. It was further contended that, if the petitioners had in fact

possessed a valid licence and supporting bills, they ought to have

approached the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking return of the

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

seized explosives. However, no such application was filed.

Consequently, orders came to be passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate permitting destruction of the explosives.

20. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that

apart from Section 328 IPC, offences under Sections 273 and 285

IPC are also clearly attracted. It was further argued that Section 328

IPC is punishable with imprisonment extending up to ten years and

therefore the question of limitation does not arise in the present

case. The learned Government Advocate ultimately submitted that

storing tobacco products and explosives in a farmhouse itself

constitutes an offence and therefore sought dismissal of the petition.

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:

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

(i) Whether the prosecution is liable to be quashed on the

ground that the informant himself conducted the investigation?

(ii) Whether the offences under Sections 273, 328 and 285 IPC

and the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act,

2003, and Explosives Act, 1884, are prima facie attracted?

(iii) Whether absence of chemical analysis or forensic

examination is fatal to the prosecution at the threshold stage?

(iv) Whether the proceedings against the second petitioner are

liable to be quashed for want of specific allegations?

Analysis:

23. The contention of the petitioners that the informant himself

investigated the case cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition

of law warranting automatic quashment. Though fairness in

investigation is an indispensable constitutional requirement, the

mere fact that the informant and Investigating Officer are the same

person would not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice

or mala fides are demonstrably established. At this stage, this Court

is unable to hold that the investigation stands irretrievably vitiated

solely on the said ground.

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

24. The principal contention of the petitioners relates to the

invocation of Section 328 IPC. Section 328 IPC contemplates

administration of poison, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome

substances with intent to cause hurt or facilitate commission of an

offence.

25. A careful reading of the final report reveals that the

allegation against the petitioners is one of possession and storage of

tobacco products. There is no allegation that the petitioners

administered such substances to any identifiable individual.

26. Mere possession of tobacco products, however morally or

medically reprehensible, cannot automatically satisfy the statutory

ingredients of Section 328 IPC. The offence under Section 328 IPC

requires a positive act of causing another person to consume or take

such substance.

27. In the absence of any allegation relating to administration,

consumption, inducement or facilitation directed towards any

person, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

Section 328 IPC are not prima facie made out. Therefore, insofar as

the offence under Section 328 IPC is concerned, continuation of

prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

28. Section 273 IPC deals with sale or exposure for sale of

noxious food or drink. Whether the alleged tobacco products fall

within the ambit of “noxious substances” and whether the same were

intended for sale are matters requiring evidence.

29. At the stage of quash proceedings, this Court cannot

undertake a meticulous appreciation of disputed factual issues. The

seizure of large quantities of tobacco products coupled with the

allegations in the final report cannot be brushed aside altogether at

this preliminary stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash

the proceedings insofar as Section 273 IPC is concerned.

30. The petitioners rely upon the licence granted in favour of

the first petitioner. However, the prosecution specifically alleges that

the explosives and crackers were stored in a farmhouse and not in

the licensed premises.

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

31. Whether the storage location was authorised under the

licence conditions and whether the petitioners violated statutory

requirements are matters which require appreciation of evidence

during trial. The existence of a licence by itself cannot constitute a

complete defence at the threshold stage.

32. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings relating to the offences under the Explosives Act, 1884,

and Section 285 IPC.

33. The petitioners strongly rely upon the absence of forensic

examination. This Court is conscious of the fact that scientific

examination would undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution case.

However, absence of such examination is not invariably fatal at the

threshold stage. Whether the prosecution can ultimately establish

the nature of the seized products by other evidence is a matter for

trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to terminate the

prosecution solely on the said ground.

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

34. A careful reading of the final report reveals that the

allegations are predominantly directed against the first petitioner.

Except the statement that the second petitioner is the son of the first

petitioner, no specific overt act or incriminating material has been

placed before this Court against the second petitioner.

35. Criminal law cannot be set in motion merely on the basis

of relationship or familial association. In the absence of specific

allegations connecting the second petitioner with the alleged

offences, continuation of proceedings against him would amount to

misuse of criminal process. Therefore, the proceedings against the

second petitioner are liable to be quashed.

Epilogue:

36. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court exists not to stifle

legitimate prosecution, but equally not to permit criminal law to

become an instrument of indiscriminate prosecution unsupported by

foundational allegations. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section

528 BNSS must maintain a delicate constitutional balance between

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

societal interest in prosecution and individual protection against

abuse of criminal process.

37. While allegations involving prohibited tobacco products

and unsafe storage of explosives undoubtedly raise serious public

safety concerns, criminal prosecution must nevertheless remain

tethered to the precise statutory ingredients governing each offence.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the offence under Section

328 IPC is clearly unsustainable on the admitted allegations.

Equally, the prosecution against the second petitioner lacks

foundational material. However, the remaining allegations involve

disputed factual issues requiring evidentiary adjudication during

trial.

38. In the result,

(i) this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed;

(ii) the proceedings in S.C.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the

learned Principal District Court, Karur District, insofar as the offence

under Section 328 IPC is concerned, are hereby quashed;

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

(iii) the proceedings against the second petitioner/A2 are also

hereby quashed in entirety;

(iv) the prosecution as against the first petitioner/A1 for the

remaining offences shall proceed in accordance with law;

(v) consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Principal District Court,

Karur District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Chithamanipatty Police Station,

Karur District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.21404 of 2025

01.06.2026

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