High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025Milton John Mathew... PetitionerVs.1. The State,The Deputy Superintendent of Police,State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre,Ashok Nagar,Chennai – 83.2. Dr.D.Venkataramanaiah... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in FIR No.10 of 2023 dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the first respondent police Station and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and wholly without jurisdiction. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel For Ms.V.SrimathiFor Respondents For R1: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 43(f), 43(j) & 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as against the petitioner.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2023, on the allegations that the second respondent came in contact with the petitioner through a crypto currency community and in pursuant to which the petitioner had proposed a business deal of 25% shares of terareum and 500 trillion of terareum tokens in return for Rs.22 lakhs investment in the petitioner’s company, through phone. The petitioner continued to pursue the second respondent and induced him to invest such a huge amount in his company. The petitioner had also sent E-mail to that effect on 03.01.2022, thereby assured that he will allot 25% share and 500 trillion tera token in exchange of USD 25,000 to the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent had met the petitioner in person on 05.01.2022 in Chennai and the petitioner told that he proposed to start a Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025company dealing with crypto currency in the name of Terareum. The petitioner also convinced the second respondent to invest in his company and the said company having registered address at 11/1, 19th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, to develop crypto currency software like central exchange, teratool, teraNFT, and trea blockchain. 3.Believing the said words, the second respondent had purchased US Dollar Token and transferred payment to the petitioner in the form of Ethereum (hereinafter referred to as “ETH”). The first payment was made on 05.01.2022 to the tune of 3.78 ETH and the second payment was made on 10.01.2022 to the tune of 3.82 ETH, both combined worth of USD 25,000/-. Subsequently, the said ETH were transfered to the wallet of the petitioner. Further the second respondent had also transferred 4.5 ETH to various persons, which has been sent to the petitioner in Excel format. The second respondent had made transfer of ETH till the month of June, 2022. However, the second respondent was never paid any dividends as promised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner intentionally deleted the website after collecting huge money from the second respondent and other investors. Thereafter, the petitioner has also cancelled the contract and created a new version 2 of Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025Terareum with the name of TERA2 without the knowledge of another investor, thereby he diverted the funds invested by the members for other purpose. The petitioner had intentionally diverted the tokens to his other wallets. Thereafter, the petitioner had sold all the tokens and Terareum and liquidated in his favour. So far, the petitioner had sold out 4.5 million USD and no trace is left and it is unaccounted. Hence the petitioner had planned this process with an intention to cheat them and their money. The petitioner had wrongfully gained money to the tune of Rs.120 crores over the period of 2022-2023. Insofar as the second respondent is concerned, he lost his entire savings to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs (25,000 USD). Hence, the complaint. 4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the founder of the company known as Terareum LLC, incorporated in the State of Wyoming, United States of America. It was formed and operates in the sphere of crypto currency and consequently devised its own coin which came to be known as TERA coin. Thought the petitioner was the founder of the company, he remains as one of the Directors of the company till the dissolution of the company on 01.03.2023. It consisted four investors including the petitioner. Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025However, the second respondent lodged complaint as against the petitioner in the individual capacity. Even according to the second respondent, he had invested money in the name of the company called Terareum LLC. In fact, he was given 25% equity in the company in liey of his investment. Due to professional differences, the petitioner felt that the involvment of the second respondent would be detrimental towards the growth of the company and returned the investment of the second respondent as early as February, 2022. In fact, the second respondent had borrowed money to the tune of 715,000 USD from one of the investors of the company. The company was incorporated in the United States of America and as such, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint lodged by the second respondent. Further the entire allegations are civil in nature and no offence is made out as against the petitioner. Hence, he has paryed to quash the FIR.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after registration of FIR, the investigation is under progress.6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025perused the materials placed before this Court.7.It is seen that the petitioner is residing at Chennai and the company is also having registered office in the address of No.11/1, 19th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Section 3 of the IPC says that any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. Even assuming the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the company called as Terareum is incorporated in the State of Wyoming, United States of America, The first respondent has got jurisdiction to register the FIR and prosecute the petitioner. 8.Further on perusal of the First Information Report, it is revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. 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 Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025interfere 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. 9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed 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 Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025the 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.10.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;Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025..............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; .......”Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 202511.In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year 2023, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.10 of 2023 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsPage 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025To1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre,Ashok Nagar,Chennai – 83.2. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai.Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsCrl.O.P.No.5570 of 202527.02.2025Page 12 of 12