Madras HC Quashes BNS Charges Against 21-Year-Old Student for Roadside Altercation With Tambaram Police

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy found no prima facie case on the FIR record, citing absent witnesses, no criminal force alleged, and an unconditional apology filed by the aeronautical engineering student.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras has quashed criminal proceedings against a 21-year-old aeronautical engineering student charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 after he allegedly abused and pushed a police officer who questioned why he and others were standing at a street junction late at night. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly, allowed the quashing petition on 14 July 2026, holding that no meaningful trial could be conducted on the material before the court. The bench found three independent infirmities in the prosecution's case — the absence of criminal force in the FIR, suspicious additions to the witness list, and the non-examination of persons who were actually present — and accepted the petitioner's unconditional apology as a further reason to close proceedings.

The Incident and the Charges

On the night of 15 May 2025, at around 10.45 p.m., the petitioner Mugilan and others were standing in a group at a junction of Kulakarai II Cross Street, Tambaram. A police officer on rounds — the de facto complainant — questioned them about their presence at that hour. According to the FIR, Mugilan replied by asserting his right to stand there, used filthy language, and allegedly pushed the complainant.

The Tambaram Police registered a case and filed a Final Report in C.C.No.742 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram. The charges framed were under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 132, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — provisions covering obstructing a public servant, obscene acts, assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty, and criminal intimidation.

Mugilan, through counsel Mr. A.R. Lakshmi Narayanan, filed Crl.O.P.No.18305 of 2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings. He also placed on record an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for any mistake he may have committed.

What the FIR and Witness List Revealed

Justice Chakravarthy examined the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the Final Report. The case cited eight witnesses in total: the de facto complainant as L.W.1, two eye witnesses as L.W.2 and L.W.3, observation mahazar and confession statement witnesses as L.W.4 to L.W.7, and the Investigating Officer as L.W.8.

The court identified three distinct problems with the prosecution's case.

The first concerned the nature of the alleged conduct. On a reading of the FIR and investigation statements, the court found that the incident arose from Mugilan replying “recklessly” when questioned by the officer. No allegation of use of criminal force or any attempt to assault the de facto complainant appeared in the record. The charges under Section 132 of the BNS — which pertains to using or attempting to use criminal force to deter a public servant — therefore had no factual foundation visible in the prosecution's own material.

The second problem related to the eye witnesses. The FIR did not state that all three policemen were together when the incident occurred. Yet L.W.2 and L.W.3, described as eye witnesses, are two other police officers who were subsequently added to the witness list. The court viewed this addition with scepticism.

The third problem was the complete absence of the other civilians who had been standing in the group with Mugilan. These persons were neither added as accused nor examined as witnesses, even though, on the prosecution's own account, they had been in conversation with Mugilan at the material time.

The Court's Reasoning

Drawing these threads together, Justice Chakravarthy concluded that the prosecution exercise would be “only a futile exercise and no meaningful trial can happen.” The act attributed to the accused, the court held, did not disclose the offences as pointed out by the prosecution.

The bench also took note of the unconditional apology filed by Mugilan. The court had queried counsel on the point, and the apology — tendered even for any altercation with the police officer on duty — was factored into the overall assessment.

The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, appearing for the State, had urged that when the petitioner interfered with a public servant on duty and threatened the police, a case was rightly registered. The court considered this submission but was not persuaded, given the specific gaps in the record.

Outcome

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed Crl.O.P.No.18305 of 2026. The Final Report in C.C.No.742 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram stands quashed as against the petitioner. The two connected miscellaneous petitions, Crl.M.P.Nos.12193 and 12194 of 2026, were closed as a consequence.