Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Thangaraja, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the final report in CC No.759 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. The case arose from an FIR registered on 17.09.2022 by the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, alleging that the petitioner and other accused were found in illegal possession of banned tobacco products in an Omni vehicle. Upon investigation, a final report was filed and taken cognizance of. The petitioner, who was the second accused, contended that the investigation was defective. He relied on an earlier order in his anticipatory bail petition (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17306 & 17312 of 2022, dated 28.09.2022), where the court, after perusing CCTV footage, found that the petitioner was not arrested at the scene of occurrence but from his petty shop, indicating inconsistencies. Additionally, the petitioner argued that no samples were taken from the seized tobacco products and no forensic report was obtained. The Government Advocate conceded the absence of a forensic report. The court held that without a forensic report, the petitioner's culpability could not be established, and the investigation was defective. Consequently, the court quashed the final report and all proceedings in CC No.759 of 2025 against the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Defective Investigation - Section 528 BNSS, 2023 - The petitioner sought quashing of the final report alleging possession of banned tobacco products - The court found that the investigation was defective as no forensic report was obtained and there were inconsistencies in the arrest location as per CCTV footage - Held that in the absence of forensic report, culpability cannot be established, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the final report in CC No.759 of 2025 should be quashed due to defective investigation, including the absence of a forensic report and inconsistencies in the arrest of the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the final report in CC No.759 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, and all proceedings therein in respect of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- defective investigation
- absence of forensic report
- inconsistencies in arrest
- Section 528 BNSS
- 2023
Case Details
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)No.238 & 240 of 2026
Mr.R.Anand for Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar (Petitioner), Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1) Government Advocate
The State of Tamil Nadu, 1. The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, 2. Jamal, Sub Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal original petition seeking quashing of final report in a case involving possession of banned tobacco products.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the final report in CC No.759 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged defective investigation, including absence of forensic report and inconsistencies in arrest location as per CCTV footage.
Previous Decisions
In Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17306 & 17312 of 2022, dated 28.09.2022, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner noting inconsistencies in arrest location based on CCTV footage.
Issues
Whether the final report should be quashed due to defective investigation, specifically the absence of a forensic report?
Whether the inconsistencies in the arrest location as per CCTV footage warrant quashing of proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation was defective as no forensic report was obtained and the arrest location was inconsistent with CCTV footage, relying on the earlier bail order.
Government Advocate conceded the absence of forensic report but argued that the accused were found in possession of 672 packets of banned tobacco products.
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of a forensic report, the culpability of the petitioner cannot be duly established by the investigating agency or prosecution before the trial court. The investigation was defective, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court is of the considered view that, in the absence of the forensic report, the culpability of the petitioner herein cannot be duly established by the investigating agency or the prosecution before the trial Court.
It is also necessary to note that, while considering the bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17306 & 17312 of 2022, this Court, upon being convinced after perusing the CCTV footage produced by the petitioner, found that the petitioner was not arrested at the scene of occurrence as claimed by the respondent police, but was in fact apprehended from his petty shop.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 17.09.2022 under Crime No.351 of 2022. Investigation completed and final report filed, taken cognizance as CC No.759 of 2025. Petitioner filed anticipatory bail petition (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17306 & 17312 of 2022) which was allowed on 28.09.2022. Subsequently, petitioner filed the present quash petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
