Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Charge Sheet In Alleged Poisoning Case, Holds Irregularity In 156(3) Not Fatal

A single-judge bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar heard a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by five accused persons seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C. No.41 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.1791 of 2020 registered at Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District. The petition challenged proceedings that charged the accused with offences including Sections 111, 120(b), 294(b), 326, 340, 383 and 506(ii) IPC, arising from an allegation that the complainant was given a tainted Ayurvedic decoction and threatened to transfer property.

The High Court dismissed the petition and held that a prima facie case existed against the petitioners and the Court could not interfere at the quashing stage. The judge reviewed the question whether an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed without a supporting affidavit or without exhausting other statutory remedies would render subsequent registration of FIR and charge sheet illegal. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Priyanka Srivastava, SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd., and Anurag Bhatnagar, the court held that omission to file an affidavit or bypassing other remedies may result in procedural irregularity but did not render the Magistrate's order or the FIR void. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The learned Judicial Magistrate after applying his mind and exercising his jurisdiction has passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C directing the police authorities to consider the complaint and register an F.I.R and in such circumstances, the police authorities does not have any discretion whatsoever except to register an F.I.R. Whether a cognizable offence is made out or not has already been taken into consideration by the Judicial Magistrate and only thereafter, an order under Section 156(3) has been passed. In such circumstances, the registration of the F.I.R by the concerned police official cannot be found fault with or it does not get vitiated by some alleged irregularities in passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, merely on the ground that there was some irregularities as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, an F.I.R or charge sheet do not get vitiated and they are not liable to be quashed on the said ground.” The court further recorded that “when the charge sheet reveals a prima facie case, cognizable offence as against the petitioners herein, this Court cannot interfere at this stage and quash the criminal proceedings.”

Background
The dispute arose from a complaint by a husband (de facto complainant) against his wife (1st accused) and her family alleging that on 26.05.2020 he was served a sour buttermilk substitute—an Ayurvedic decoction allegedly mixed with ant-killer powder and sleeping tablets—after which he suffered stomach pain and was admitted to a government hospital. The complainant alleged that his wife and relatives threatened him to transfer properties and later took away jewellery and sarees. The petitioners contended that earlier criminal proceedings (C.C. No.388 of 2019 and DVOP No.33 of 2018) had been compromised and quashed; they alleged the complainant staged the poisoning episode and relied on the contention that the Section 156(3) petition before the Judicial Magistrate lacked an accompanying affidavit and was therefore irregular. Counsel for petitioners also argued absence of independent witnesses, lack of particulars for conspiracy and property-related offences, and that certain offences (e.g., Section 294(b) and 506(ii)) were not made out.

The State and the complainant resisted quashing, asserting that the charge sheet reflected ingredients of cognizable offences and that disputed facts required trial. The High Court examined Priyanka Srivastava (2015) and subsequent clarifications in SAS Infratech (2024) and Anurag Bhatnagar (2025), concluding that the Supreme Court’s earlier caution that Section 156(3) petitions should be supported by affidavit operated as a measure to curb frivolous complaints, but omission did not render the Magistrate’s order without jurisdiction. The High Court noted that in the present case the Section 156(3) petition was filed in the form of a sworn affidavit in any event. Applying these principles, the court found that the FIR registration and subsequent investigation were not vitiated by the alleged procedural irregularities and that the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case. The petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to proceed and dispose of the criminal proceedings without being influenced by the High Court's observations. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.OP(MD).No.7727 of 2024
Case Title: Mrs. Kanimozhi and others v. The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District and Mr. Arun Deepak
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Babu Rajendran
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl. side) for R1; M/s. S. Meena for R2