(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records of the First Information Report in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mamallapuram Police Station, Chengalpattu District/ first respondent herein and quash the same.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as the Assistant Engineer at the 150 MLD SWRO Desalination Plant, Nemmeli, under the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). The culvert situated in front of 150 MLD Desalination Plant, Nemmeli, was constructed in February, 2024 and inaugurated by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 24.02.2024. Due to the close proximity of the road and continuous heavy vehicular vibrations, a few of the stones from the top portion of the culvert became dislodged on 28.06.2026 and upon inspection, it was observed that the stones in the lower portion had become slack and to safeguard the culvert, prevent any untoward incident and ensure public safety, the slack stones were removed and kept separately on 30.06.2026 and the carving/ replacement of the cracked stones was in progress. As a safety measure during the repair works, green safety nets were erected around the work area for safe execution of works. On 05.07.2026 at around 09.30 pm to 10.00 pm, the petitioner along with two unknown persons are alleged to have ripped and damaged the green safety nets which has been covered around the work area, which resulted in damage to Government property, causing an estimated loss of approximately Rs.10,000/-.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been registered only for political revenge/ motive. The petitioner is functioning as the Chairman of Tiruporur Panchayat Union, Chengalpattu District. He has to monitor the entire works undertaken in his Panchayat Union. 150 MLD Desalination Plant, Nemmeli, was constructed in the month of February, 2024 and inaugurated by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 24.02.2024 with his name board as per the Government Orders. The present Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu inspected the said Plant on 06.07.2026. The name board of the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has been wrapped by the second respondent with green nets. This issue was published in the media on 07.07.2026 throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being the Chairman of Panchayat Union, went there and seen the said culvert, but name of the then Hon’ble Chief Minister was removed from the culvert, which had been erected on 24.02.2024 and green net has been wrapped due to the inspection of the present Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the very registration of FIR would amount to gross abuse of process of law. Even if it is accepted in its entirety, it does not disclose the essential ingredients required under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The very ingredient for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, is the intention or knowledge to destroy or cause damage to the public property. Therefore, the entire allegations in the FIR do not attribute any intention of the petitioner to cause any damage to the public property. Therefore, the FIR cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

5. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and on also on the submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor reveals that the second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the culvert situated in front of the 150 MLD SWRO Desalination Plant, Nemmeli, was constructed in February, 2024 and inaugurated by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 24.02.2024. Due to the close proximity of the road and continuous heavy vehicular vibrations, a few stones from the top portion of the culvert became dislodged on 28.06.2026 and upon inspection, it was noticed that the stones in the lower portion had become loose and to safeguard the culvert, prevent any untoward incident and ensure public safety, the loose stones were carefully removed and kept separately on 30.06.2026 and the executive agency is presently carrying out repair works to strengthen the stone fixing arrangement and as a part of the rectification works, additional anchor screws are being provided to secure the stones and the carving/ replacement of the cracked stones was currently in progress. As a safety measure during the repair works, green safety nets were erected around the work area for safe execution of works.

6. On 05.07.2026 between 09.30 pm and 10.00 pm, the petitioner along with two unknown persons tore and damaged the green safety net installed around the work area, thereby, causing damage to Government property, causing an estimated loss of approximately Rs.10,000/-. The learned State Public Prosecutor also produced photographs of the incident. The petitioner intentionally got down from his vehicle after seeing the green safety net which was put up to close the culvert inorder to do the renovation work and completely torn the green safety net. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident did not happen with any intention.

7. Though the petitioner is a care taker of the entire public property, he should not have torn the green safety net covering the culvert containing the name of the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. It was closed to ensure the public safety. If any untoward incident happen to the public during the renovation work, it would cause huge loss. Therefore, inorder to prevent the untoward incident and also to ensure public safety, the culvert was covered with green safety net during the renovation work. The said act of the petitioner clearly satisfy the essential ingredient of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The green safety net is a safety barricading material which was procured from public funds and installed for the protection of an ongoing public work and is Government property within the contemplation of the Act.

8. Merely because the petitioner is a Panchayat Union Chairman, he cannot indulge in such acts and cause damage to the property. That apart, the petitioner is setting a wrong example to his followers and others and this will lead to a very dangerous trend. It also appears that the petitioner indulged in such acts for publicity and with a view to create unnecessary issues.

9. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-

                   “23. ....................

                   vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

                   vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

                   ..............

                   xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

                   .............

                   xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

12. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no grounds to quash the very First Information Report and therefore, is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.215 of 2026 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.

13. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.