Madras High Court
M.Prasanna Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 18 December, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.20210 of 2025
M.Prasanna Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thallakulam Police Station,
Madurai City, Madurai.
(Crime No.550 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No.14704 of 2025 pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same insofar
as the petitioner/A4 is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Siva
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*****
_____________
Page No. 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025
ORDER
Seeking quashment of the impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No. 14704 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed.
2. Mr.T.Siva, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a young man aged 22 years, who is an MBA student at Madurai Kamaraj University and is awaiting internship with the Airports Authority of India; that during the interregnum, the petitioner along with 10 of his friends went for a joy ride in five motorcycles, for which the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.550 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 279 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and that the police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet for the very same offences. He sought the indulgence of this Court considering the future of the young man.
3. Per contra, Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, categorically submitted that it is not a fact that the petitioner along with _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025 his friends went for a joy ride, but they were indulging in “wheeling” and riding the motorcycles in a rash and negligent manner, creating excessive noise by blowing horns, thereby causing great alarm to the general public passing in the road. He further submitted that they had also taken photographs and videos of such “wheeling” and rash riding, thereby causing nuisance to the general public, using a Canon camera and therefore sought for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in Karthiheswaran v. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai1 and submitted that this Court, in the said case, considering the future of the youngsters, quashed a similar case. He therefore requested this Court to quash the case against the petitioner, taking into account the future of the petitioner
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and carefully perused the material available on record.
1 order dated 21.01.2025 rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.7644 and 19719 of 2024 _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025
6. On perusal of the order of this Court in Karthiheswaran (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court considering the future of the youngsters, who were the petitioners therein and also considering the fact that the complaint against them was not lodged by any of the public, had quashed the F.I.R.
7. Similarly even in the instant case, it is seen that since no member of the public as contended by the learned Government Advocate has lodged any complaint against the petitioner and his friends, the contention that they caused alarm to the general public cannot be considered. At the same time, the material available on record indicates that the petitioner and his friends were indulging in “wheeling” and not simply a joy ride. The petitioner has sought for the indulgence of this Court stating that he will not indulge in such activity in the future. Therefore, considering the future of the petitioner, who is an MBA student, this Court directs the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking that he will not indulge in such activity in the future, by tomorrow.
8. The impugned charge sheet, as against the petitioner alone, is quashed, strictly warning the petitioner not to repeat such conduct in the _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025 future and directing him to deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty- Five Thousand only) for establishing an E-Library to the credit of the MBHAA, in Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Branch, Account No.496038755, IFSC No.IDIB000H040, MICR Code:
625019020, within a period of two weeks from today.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. However, list the case on 19.01.2026 for reporting compliance. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
18.12.2025 JEN Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Copy To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025 L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
JEN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23298 of 2025 18.12.2025 _____________ Page No. 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 12:45:11 pm )