(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.20 of 2026 dated 10.01.2026 on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal.)

1. The present petition is filed by Accused No. 5 in Crime No. 20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeking to quash the FIR wherein he is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 310(4) of the BNS, 2023.

(A) Factual Matrix:

2. The FIR reveals that it was registered on suo motu information. At about 02:00 hours on 10.01.2026, a police party on patrol within the station limits, acting on secret information, kept watch over seven persons gathered and conversing in a walled vacant site on the eastern side of a theatre located about 0.5 km north-west of the police station.

3. According to the prosecution, the police party overheard the seven persons planning that the houses on State Bank Colony Main Road would hold gold jewels and cash; that three of them would carry aruvals, two would carry knives, one an iron rod and one a rope; and that they would enter the house, tie up the occupants, cut them with aruvals and commit dacoity. On seeing the police party, the seven are said to have attempted to escape, whereupon they were apprehended and their names and addresses ascertained.

(B) Submissions on Either Side:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 24 years, has no criminal antecedents, and has been falsely implicated. The alleged occurrence is barely 0.5 km from the police station, and it is highly improbable that seven persons would gather so close to it and openly discuss a plan to commit dacoity. It is equally improbable that the police party could have overheard the details of the alleged plan. Counsel further pointed out that no independent witness was present at the alleged seizure of weapons and that no independent material supports the prosecution version.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in Crl.OP.No.18337 of 2021 (Mathivanan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vadipatty Police Station, Madurai District and others) dated 17.12.2021; Crl.OP(MD).No.20829 of 2021 (Sakthiganesh Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District and another) dated 01.02.2022; and the judgment reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 11287 (R. Sathik Basha and another Vs. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police and another), and contended that a mere assembly of persons does not amount to preparation to commit dacoity, unless there is material showing that the accused made preparation for that purpose.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, in that seven persons were found together at 02:00 hours armed with deadly weapons and were apprehended on the spot. He further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. He, however, conceded that no previous case is pending against the petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records.

(C) Discussion:

8. The respondent police have invoked Section 310(4) of the BNS, 2023, which corresponds to Section 399 of the IPC. Significantly, they have not invoked Section 310(5) of the BNS, corresponding to Section 402 of the IPC. The case, as registered, is therefore one of preparation alone. The criminal law ordinarily does not punish a mere intention to commit an offence, or preparation to commit it. Section 310(4) of the BNS is among the few provisions that render preparation itself punishable, and that too with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years. Precisely because penal consequences attach at so early a stage, and because such cases ordinarily rest almost entirely on the version of the police officer who claims to have intercepted the preparation, the material relied upon must be scrutinised with care. To attract the provision, there must be five or more persons; they must have made preparation; and the preparation must be for the purpose of committing dacoity.

9. This Court in Crl.OP.No.18337 of 2021 (Mathivanan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vadipatty Police Station, Madurai District and others) dated 17.12.2021, in paragraph No.7, has held as follows:

                     "7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. For an act to constitute a crime, there are four stages, i)intention, ii)preparation, iii)attempt and iv)accomplishment. While penal laws intervene only at the third and fourth stages normally, even preparation is made an offence in certain cases. Section 399 of IPC is one such provision. Section 122 IPC is another. Any penal provision has to be strictly construed. Application of the provisions which penalize even preparation must meet a higher threshold."

10. This judgment was followed in Crl.OP(MD).No.20829 of 2021 (Sakthiganesh Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District and another) dated 01.02.2022, paragraph No.2 of which is extracted as follows:

                     "2.This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR registered on the file of the Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District for the offence under Section 399 IPC. I went through the contents of the FIR. According to the prosecution, when the respondent police were on a secret watch, they found that the accused were preparing under river bridge to commit robbery. I have held in Crl O.P. (MD) No. 18337 of 2021 (Mathivanan vs. The Inspector of Police, Vadipatty Police Station, Madurai) that the offences involving preparation alone such as Section 399 of IPC and Section 122 of IPC will have to meet a higher threshold. It is inherently improbable that within the hearing distance of the police, the accused had a conversation as alleged by the prosecution....."

11. This Court, in the decision reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 11287 (R.Sathik Basha and another Vs. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police and another), in paragraph Nos.6 to 8, has held as follows:

                     "6. Here, it is a case, in the complaint given by the second respondent, he made allegations against the petitioners as during the relevant point of time, the petitioners and 3 others made conspiracy for committing the offence of dacoity. In otherwise, nothing was averred against the petitioners in respect to the preparation and attempt.

                     7.In general, mere intention to commit an offence cannot constitute an offence. In the complaint, the defacto complainant / second respondent did not say anything about the words uttered by the petitioners in respect to the preparation and attempt. Without hearing the conversion happened between the accused, nobody come to the conclusion that they made conspiracy for committing the offence.

                     8. Though it was stated as the petitioners are having dangerous weapons that alone is not sufficient to hold that the said weapons were possessed by the accused only for the purpose of committing the dacoity. More than that, without knowing the details of the accused, the second respondent lodged the complaint against the petitioners and others, as they made preparation for committing the offence."

12. The entire case of preparation for dacoity rests upon what the police claim to have overheard. Divested of that conversation, all that remains is that seven young men were found together at a vacant site at night. The accused are said to have noticed the police party only after the whole plan had been discussed. If, as alleged, the accused had already armed themselves, the allocation of weapons already stood made, and there was hardly any occasion to recite it aloud. This is precisely the kind of narrative which this Court, in Sakthiganesh's case cited supra, found to be inherently improbable.

13. The FIR states that seven persons, five of them armed with aruvals and knives, attempted to flee on sighting the police. Yet a party of four police personnel is said to have apprehended every one of them at 02:00 hours, without resistance, without injury to anyone, and without a single person escaping. The FIR is silent as to how this was achieved.

14. Admittedly, there is no independent witness to the seizure. The FIR itself records that the mahazar was signed only by members of the police party and that no independent person came forward, though the place is described as a vacant site adjoining a cinema theatre within the town.

15. The place of occurrence is shown as about 500 metres from the police station. While this circumstance, standing alone, may not be decisive, it adds to the improbability of seven persons choosing that spot to discuss loudly and in detail a plan for armed dacoity. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that he was one of the seven persons present and was holding an aruval. No overt act, no prior association with the other accused, and no role in the alleged planning distinct from that of the others is attributed to him. Even as per the prosecution, the petitioner has no bad antecedents or criminal case.

16. In such circumstances, it is clear that the ingredients of Section 310(4) of the BNS, 2023, are not made out, and the case projected by the investigating agency is highly improbable. It squarely falls within Category V enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case (AIR 1992 SC 604) and therefore, permitting the investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

(D) Conclusion:

In view of the foregoing deliberations, the FIR in Crime No. 20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police stands quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.