Madurai Bench Transfers Tirunelveli Quarry-Meeting Assault Probe to CBCID, Cites Biased Investigation
The Madurai Bench found that local police ignored the organiser's complaint, skipped video evidence, and filed a hurried final report after advocates attacked a public hearing on illegal quarrying.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ordered the transfer of the investigation in Crime No.593 of 2025 from the Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli, to the Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, Chennai. Justice B. Pugalendhi, sitting singly, allowed the criminal original petition filed by Jayaram Venkatesan, convener of Arappor Iyakkam, and Dr. V. Suresh, a Senior Advocate of the Madras High Court, after finding that the local police had conducted a biased investigation — registering a case on a constable's complaint while ignoring the organiser's e-complaint, failing to record statements of the injured or participants, and filing a final report without collecting available video and photographic evidence. The court held that the right to a fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Meeting and the Assault at Rose Mahal, Palayamkottai
On 2 November 2025, Arappor Iyakkam organised a public hearing at Rose Mahal, Kokkirakulam, Palayamkottai, to record the grievances of farmers and residents affected by illegal stone quarrying operations in Tirunelveli district. The meeting was chaired by Dr. V. Suresh. A panel of experts attended, and around 100 farmers from several villages including Irukankulam, Radhapuram, Vadakkankulam, and Mukkoddal had registered through volunteers.
The meeting commenced at 10:00 am. Two farmers had expressed their views when, at around 11:25 am, a group of 25 to 30 advocates entered the hall. The petitioners stated that these advocates claimed to represent quarry operators, shouted at participants, and created a disturbance with the intention of stopping the meeting. One Dharmaraj, Vice-President of the Idaikal Panchayat, was slapped and assaulted. An advocate threw a chair, which struck Dr. V. Suresh and caused a head injury. The petitioners stated that police personnel were present throughout but remained mute spectators and took no steps to prevent the incident.
Despite the disruption, the organisers, farmers, and volunteers did not retaliate. The meeting continued and concluded at 2:30 pm after receiving representations from affected villagers.
The FIR That Followed — and the Complaint That Did Not
The first petitioner lodged an e-complaint through the Online Complaints Portal to the Palayamkottai Police Station on the same day at around 5:00 pm, bearing reference number RTJ25554536. That complaint was not acted upon.
Instead, the third respondent police registered a suo motu case — Crime No.593 of 2025 — on 2 November 2025, on the complaint of one Jeyaganesh, a Head Constable who had been on patrol duty near the marriage hall. The FIR named five advocates and charged them under Section 296(b) [using obscene words in a public place] and Section 115(2) [voluntarily causing hurt] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioners contended that the FIR was deliberately registered in a vague manner, omitting material details. They pointed out that the police had not recorded the statements of the petitioners, the injured person, or any of the participants. Video recordings and photographs of the incident, including footage captured by press and media personnel who were present before the commotion began, were not collected.
The Police Version and the Final Report
The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent police, offered a different account. He submitted that the meeting had two groups — one opposing quarry operations and one supporting them — and that a plastic chair was thrown by one side, hitting a person. He stated that the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai, arrived at the hall, enquired with both parties, and instructed everyone to disperse peacefully. The case was registered against the five identified advocates.
The prosecution further submitted that the investigation had been completed and a final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli through e-filing, though it was yet to be taken on file. Since the investigation was complete, the prosecution argued there was no need for CB-CID involvement and sought dismissal of the petition.
The Palayamkottai Police Station also filed a counter affidavit asserting that the petitioners had not cooperated with the police to record their statements, that there were no materials to show the second petitioner had undergone treatment, and that recording statements of official witnesses was sufficient.
What the Case Diary Revealed
The court directed the third respondent to circulate the case diary in Crime No.593 of 2025, which was produced by the Additional Public Prosecutor. On perusal, the court found that the third respondent had recorded statements only from police officers and the managers of the marriage hall. No statement had been recorded from the petitioners, the injured person, or any participant.
The court also noted that a photograph available in the case diary file itself showed press and media personnel present at the venue even before the commotion started, confirming that the entire episode had been recorded. Yet those recordings were not collected.
The court observed that the offences in the FIR had been altered on 14 April 2026 from Sections 115(2) and 296(b) of the BNS to Sections 132 [use of criminal force on a public servant], 189(2) [unlawful assembly], and 296(b) of the BNS, with the investigating officer taking the position that there was no proof the injured person had received treatment. Dr. V. Suresh, however, had enclosed medical reports and CT scan records in the typed set of papers filed before the court.
The Court's Reasoning on Fair Investigation and Article 21
Justice Pugalendhi observed that the meeting had been organised to hear the grievances of farmers affected by quarrying, and that public hearing of residents is a mandatory legal requirement before the grant of a quarry licence — a requirement that is not complied with strictly. The named accused and others had entered the hall without registering themselves, claiming to represent quarry owners, and had created problems to disturb the meeting.
The court found that when the entire incident had been captured on video cameras and photographs, the police ought to have collected that material and ascertained who the aggressor was and what their intentions were. The court also questioned why a case was registered on the complaint of a constable when the injured person was present at the spot and the organiser had already lodged a complaint.
The court held that “the right to a fair investigation is also a fundamental right accrued on the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It concluded that the third respondent had acted in a biased manner by not examining the organisers, participants, media personnel, or the injured person, and had hurriedly filed a final report to close the case with ordinary offences.
On the prosecution's submission that the final report had already been filed, the court observed that even if the defective final report were taken on file, it would need to be returned by the Judicial Magistrate concerned.
Directions Issued
The court directed the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, to get back the final report from the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, and forward it along with the entire file in Crime No.593 of 2025 to the Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.
The Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, upon receipt of the file, is directed to entrust the investigation either to the second respondent — the Inspector of Police, CB-CID, Tirunelveli — or to another honest investigating officer, and to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair and proper manner. The first respondent is also directed to ensure that a fresh final report in Crime No.593 of 2025 is filed within three months of receiving the file.
Order
CrlOP(MD)No.7419 of 2026 was allowed on 19 June 2026. The connected miscellaneous petition, CrlMP(MD)No.8017 of 2026, was closed. The order was addressed to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli; the Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, Chennai; the Inspector of Police, CB-CID, Tirunelveli; and the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station. A copy was directed to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli.