Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Youth Booked For 'Recklessly Replying' To Police Query During Night Patrol

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the allegations against him were not made out and that continuing the trial would be a futile exercise. The court also took note of the unconditional apology tendered by him and observed that the prosecution need not be continued.

“Therefore, prima facie, the exercise that is made would only be a futile exercise and no meaningful trial can happen. The act of the accused also does not disclose the offence as pointed out by the prosecution. Further, upon the query made by this Court, even if there is any altercation with the Police on duty, the petitioner has filed an affidavit unconditionally apologising the Policemen on duty. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution against the petitioner need not be continued,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a case by Mugilan seeking to quash the case pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate Court in Tambaram.

The case against Mugilan was that on May 15, 2025, at 10:45 PM, when Mugilan and others were standing in a group at a junction of Kulkarai II Cross Street, the police officer who was on rounds came to the place and confronted the group about why they were standing there at nighttime. To this, Mugilan replied, asking why he should not stand there, and abused the police officer in filthy language. It was also alleged that Mugilan pushed the officer.

Based on the complaint by the police officer, a case was registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 132, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR were false and exaggerated and foisted due to misunderstanding and personal enmity. The petitioner argued that he had a wordy altercation with the police officer, and at no point did he abuse the officer. He also argued that he never assaulted the police officer. It was also argued that there were no independent eyewitnesses to the incident.

The petitioner also filed an affidavit, tendering an unconditional apology if he had committed any mistake.

The Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had interfered with the public servant doing his duty and threatened the police. He also submitted that the final report had already been filed.

The court noted that in the present case, there were 8 witnesses, of whom one was the investigating officer, 4 were observation mahazar and confession statement witnesses, one was the police officer, and two were police officers who were eye-witnesses.

The court noted that upon going through the materials, no allegations had been made of the use of any criminal force or of trying to assault the police officer. The court also noted that there was nothing to show whether the three police officers went together, but they were added as if they had witnessed the incident. The court also noted that other persons who were conversing with the petitioner were not included as accused in the case.

Thus, the court noted that there were no materials against the petitioner. Further, taking note of the unconditional apology, the court was inclined to interfere and drop the criminal case against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. R. Lakshmi Narayanan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side),

Case Title: Mugilan v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

Case No: Crl OP No 18305 of 2026