Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2021 – Section 8 and 9 – This writ petition challenges the order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for SC/ST, which issued a Bailable Warrant against the Superintendent of Police (SP), Tirunelveli, for non-appearance before the Commission. The case originated from a complaint alleging land registration in the name of private individuals, prompting the Commission to seek a report from the SP. An enquiry report was submitted with delay, and the Additional Superintendent of Police appeared on behalf of the SP.

The petitioner argued that the Commission exceeded its powers by issuing the warrant, especially after receiving the requested report.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) Section 482 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 and Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 477A, 380, 406 and 420 – The petitioner challenged an order dismissing his revision petition against the trial court’s rejection of his discharge application. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 477A, 380, 406 and 420 of the IPC, alleging that he misappropriated funds and falsified accounts while working as a Project Director for Varsha Constructions. The core accusation involves manipulating accounts, receiving advances from suppliers under the guise of being the owner, and misappropriating approximately Rs. 21,00,000.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 199(2), 199(4), 199(6); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 500 – The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash a private complaint lodged by the Public Prosecutor under Section 500 of the IPC, alleging defamation of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that the statements made were criticisms against the individual and not related to the discharge of any official duty and therefore do not constitute defamation.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the statements were made in respect of the discharge of the official duty of the Chief Minister, thus constituting defamation. The court analyzed the statements and previous judgments concerning defamation and the duties of public officials.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 304(ii) & Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 135(1)(a) – This appeal challenged a judgment convicting the appellant under Section 304(ii) of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (theft of electricity).

The prosecution’s case was that the appellant erected an electric fence by illegally tapping electricity, resulting in the death of two individuals who went to irrigate their field. The appellant allegedly wanted the deceased to sell their land to him, and they refused to do so.

The appellant argued discrepancies in witness testimonies, questioned the evidence linking him to the electric fence, and pointed out that the Electricity Board official’s testimony suggested a power shutdown during the incident.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 141, 143 & 188; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Police Act, 1861 – Section 30(2) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash FIR No. 320 of 2018, registered for offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, along with others, unlawfully assembled and protested against the opening of a TASMAC shop without prior permission.

The petitioners argued that the prosecution’s case, even if taken at face value, does not constitute any offense and that the government has withdrawn similar cases.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 166, 182, 420, 468, 471 – This case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, challenging the trial court’s dismissal of his discharge petition in C.C.No.427 of 2024. The accused faced charges under Sections 166, 182, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, stemming from allegations that he fraudulently obtained an Other Backward Class (OBC) caste certificate by suppressing his actual Scheduled Caste identity.

The petitioner argued that the charges were not substantiated, citing the lack of evidence for offences like forgery and cheating. He claimed to be a victim of circumstances, pressured by his former in-laws to adopt their caste identity after marrying into their family.

POCSO Act, 2012 – Sections 19(1) and 21(2) – This case involves Criminal Original Petitions filed by the Principal (A2) and Secretary (A3) of a school, seeking to quash final reports in connection with a POCSO Act case. The accused, a Physical Education Teacher (A1), allegedly sexually assaulted and misbehaved with minor girl students. The petitioners are charged under Sections 19(1) and 21(2) of the POCSO Act for failing to report the offences committed by their subordinate.

The prosecution alleges that after the victims disclosed the incidents to a teacher, the petitioners enquired about the allegations but instead of reporting to the authorities, they advised the victims to remain silent.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 25(3) – This case involves an appeal against an order dismissing the appellant’s petition to rescind a permanent alimony order and a direction to execute a release deed in favor of his divorced wife. The divorce was granted in O.P. No.84 of 2015, with the wife filing I.A. No.2648 of 2016 for permanent alimony, which was initially allowed.

The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TN VAT Act) Section 19(11) – The case originated from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking payment for refrigeration items supplied to the defendant, a public limited company, on credit. The plaintiff claimed that despite part payments, a sum of Rs.3,21,650/- remained outstanding, along with a 24% per annum interest. The defendant contested the claim, stating that payments were made according to the agreed terms, subject to statutory deductions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TN VAT Act).

The defendant argued that certain invoices were submitted late, preventing them from claiming input tax credit within the stipulated timeframe as per Section 19(11) of the TN VAT Act.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 195 and 482 & Indian Penal Code (IPC) – The case involves two Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P.) filed by Mr. A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former Inspector General of Police. The first, Crl.O.P.No.2263 of 2025, challenged the rejection of his request for a copy of the preliminary report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with FIR RC0502024S0013.