High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3737 of 2023andCrl.M.P.No.2359 & 2360 of 20231.S.K.S.Jewellers, Rep. by its authorized Signatory A.Senthilkumar No.5/613, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Dasanayakkanpatti, Salem - 636 201.2. Senthilkumar ... PetitionersVs.P.Ragunathan ..RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in S.T.C.No.6228 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem and to quash the entire proceedings. For Petitioners: Mr.R.John SathyanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023 for Mr.S.VijayanandO R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.6228 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem.2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent has known to the second petitioner since 2017. The second petitioner, Authorized Signatory of the first petitioner company. In 2017, the respondent was introduced to the second petitioner and his wife by brokers while seeking to purchase land. The second petitioner received large sums from the respondent in cash and via bank transfers, promising to purchase land. However, no land was purchased. On 05.03.2021, the second petitioner acknowledged a debt of Rs. 2.4 crores, paid Rs. 10 lakhs in cash, and issued five post-dated cheques for the balance of Rs. 2.3 crores, assuring they would be honored. Two of these cheques (amounting to Rs. 80 lakhs) were deposited but dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite legal notice, the amount was not repaid. Based on this, the respondent Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.6228 of 2021. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are baseless and without merit, and the case is built on fabricated grounds. The evidence presented does not establish the petitioners' connection to the alleged fraud or the dishonored cheques. The respondent has failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate the claim of fraud, and the complaint lacks merit. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court.5. After considering the submissions of both parties, this Court observed that a prima facie case under Section 138 of N.I.Act is made out as against the petitioners, supported by dishonored cheques and return memos. The petitioners have failed to provide adequate defense Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023against the charges. That apart, it is seen that based on the complaint lodged by the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, has taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.6228 of 2021 and it is pending. Interference at this stage is unwarranted as the matter involves disputed facts that require full-fledged trial. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019), while dealing with a petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings, held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statements of witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements, and therefore, no prima facie case was made out against the accused. Such an exercise can be done only by the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits or by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order. The charge sheet having been laid on the basis of inconsistent statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not a Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023ground for quashing at the pre-trial stage. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Arvind Khanna (Criminal Appeal No.1572 of 2019, dated 17.10.2019), held that the High Courts cannot record findings on disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court during trial. Therefore, this Court has no power to consider disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M. Jayanthi vs. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., held that while considering a petition for quashing a complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should examine is whether the allegations in the complaint form the basis of the ingredients constituting the offences complained of. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023Further, the Court can also examine whether the preconditions required for taking cognizance have been complied with, and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, would constitute the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to disprove the allegations is a matter to be determined during trial. 9. Further, this Court cannot, at this stage, observe that the initiation of criminal proceedings is malicious. Whether the proceedings are malicious or not is a matter to be considered only at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained for quashing the entire proceedings at this stage. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.6228 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 202311. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.04.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3737 of 2023To1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, SalemCrl.O.P.No.3737 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.2359 & 2360 of 202302.04.2025(1/2)Page 8 of 8