Kavin Honour Killing Case: Madras High Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Cop Couple, Says Materials Do Not Disclose Offences Alleged

Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the materials relied upon by the prosecution did not disclose the offences alleged. The court added that the materials were insufficient to establish the presence of the two accused at the place of occurrence or that they had conspired to commit the offence. The court further added that the charges under the SC/ST Act would also fall as there was no reference to caste name in public view.

“The allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The case of screening rests upon an inference drawn from cell tower location data, which, as per the authorities cited above, is insufficient to establish presence, much less the contents of any conversation, and in any event stands contradicted by the prosecution's own material. The allegation of cheating does not identify any deception practised upon the deceased. The provisions of the SC/ST Act fail for want of any caste reference, any place within public view, and any participation in the qualifying underlying offence,” the court said.

Kavin Selvaganesh, a techie working in Chennai belonging to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on July 27, 2025 by the family of the woman, with whom he allegedly had a love affair, who belonged to the Hindu Maravar community.

A case was registered against the brother, father, mother, and relative of the girl. The chargesheet was laid for offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 249(a) and 318(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The allegation against the father and mother (both working as Sub-Inspectors of Police at the time of the incident) was that they had contacted the deceased over phone in 2018-2019 and cautioned against relationship with their daughter.

It was also argued that the father had obtained a two-wheeler in 2023 and handed it over to the son with fake registration number. It was also alleged that they had communicated with the first accused, their son, immediately after the occurrence and had helped him escape arrest, instructing him to destroy his clothes, damage mobile phone and remove number plate of two-wheeler.

The petitioners argued that they were not present at the scene of occurrence and there was no overt act attributed to them. It was submitted that the case against them solely rested on the call detail records and the prosecution had inferred a meeting based only on that. With respect to offences under the SC/ST Act, it was submitted that no caste name was uttered and communications relied upon where private telephonic conversation, which would not attract offences as alleged.

The State opposed the couple's quashing plea and contended that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the petitioners. It was argued that whether the conduct of the parties after the occurrence would amount to screening was a matter to be decided on trial.

The court noted that there was no CCTV footage photograph, video recording or statement of any independent witness to show that the petitioners had met the first accused (their son) and instructed him to destroy the clothes. The court also noted that there was no record of the conversation between the parties and the sole material that the prosecution relied upon was the tower location of the parties. The court observed that tower location would not conclusively establish that the persons were in each other's company. The court added that even assuming that a conversation took place between the parties, it would not establish the content of the conversation.

The court also noted that even as per the prosecution, the father had reached the scene of occurrence within 16 minutes of receiving information and informed the Head Constable that the murder was committed by his son, following which the son was taken into custody on the same day. The court noted that harbouring required an intention to screen the offender from apprehension, but in the present case, the father had named his own son. Thus, the court noted that the essential ingredient for causing disappearance of evidence and harbouring accused was negatived.

With respect to the telephonic conversation with the deceased by the parents, the court noted that the same was 7 years before the occurrence and was a private conversation between the parties, regarding the relationship between the two young persons. The court also noted that there was nothing to show that any reference to the community of the deceased was made and it was natural for a parent to admonish a son or daughter who entered a relationship during school days.

Thus, considering all the materials, the court noted that the essential ingredients to prove the offence did not exist. As such, the court was inclined to quash the chargesheet, as against the father and mother.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Ananth

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. P. Samuel Gunasingh Government Advocate (Crl.side), Mr. B. Mohan, Mr. P. Karthick

Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 470

Case No: CRL OP(MD) NO 995 of 2026