High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025and Crl.M.P.Nos.5216 and 5219 of 2025Ravichandran... PetitionerVs1. State By, The Inspector of Police, Job Racketing Wing, Team 28, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -600007. (Crime No.31 of 2016)2. M.Baskhar... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Nagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s A.MadhumathiFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant came to know that M/s Premier Airways Limited, Chennai was recruiting for the post of Commercial Pilot through his family friend one Ravichandran, viz., the petitioner herein, who is employed as HR and legal head of the said company. It is alleged that the defacto complainant's son one Santhosh was asked by the petitioner to apply for the position of trainee co-pilot, assuring him of employment with the airline scheduled to commence operation in June 2015. Upon receiving a letter of confirmation dated 12.02.2015 and a subsequent letter of appointment dated 04.06.2015, the complainant allegedly transferred Rs.25 lakhs to the company's account for training expenses at Gurgaon. After completing 45 days training program, the said Santhosh submitted a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- along with other documents for DGCA endorsement. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025Thereafter, on 29.09.2015, the petitioner allegedly informed the complainant that the airline was facing investment and clearance issues, putting its future in doubt. Subsequently, on 03.10.2015, the complainant met the first accused at the airline's office, demanding a refund of Rs.25 lakhs. In response, the first accused issued a cheque dated 05.11.2015, but later requested the complainant not to present it, assuring that a demand draft would be issued on 13.11.2015. However, on the said date, the complainant was unable to meet the first accused. Thereafter, it was found that the first accused was attempting to abscond from India. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.31 of 2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.5. A perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025considered only during the trial before the Trial Court.6. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025accordance with law. 7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 20258. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged............... 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025arise only at a later stage...................."The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.9674 of 2021, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.19.03.2025Internet:YesPage 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025To 1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, Job Racketing Wing, Team 28, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -600007.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.8058 of 202519.03.2025Page 10 of 10

Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025and Crl.M.P.Nos.5216 and 5219 of 2025Ravichandran... PetitionerVs1. State By, The Inspector of Police, Job Racketing Wing, Team 28, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -600007. (Crime No.31 of 2016)2. M.Baskhar... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Nagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s A.MadhumathiFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant came to know that M/s Premier Airways Limited, Chennai was recruiting for the post of Commercial Pilot through his family friend one Ravichandran, viz., the petitioner herein, who is employed as HR and legal head of the said company. It is alleged that the defacto complainant's son one Santhosh was asked by the petitioner to apply for the position of trainee co-pilot, assuring him of employment with the airline scheduled to commence operation in June 2015. Upon receiving a letter of confirmation dated 12.02.2015 and a subsequent letter of appointment dated 04.06.2015, the complainant allegedly transferred Rs.25 lakhs to the company's account for training expenses at Gurgaon. After completing 45 days training program, the said Santhosh submitted a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- along with other documents for DGCA endorsement. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025Thereafter, on 29.09.2015, the petitioner allegedly informed the complainant that the airline was facing investment and clearance issues, putting its future in doubt. Subsequently, on 03.10.2015, the complainant met the first accused at the airline's office, demanding a refund of Rs.25 lakhs. In response, the first accused issued a cheque dated 05.11.2015, but later requested the complainant not to present it, assuring that a demand draft would be issued on 13.11.2015. However, on the said date, the complainant was unable to meet the first accused. Thereafter, it was found that the first accused was attempting to abscond from India. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.31 of 2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.5. A perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025considered only during the trial before the Trial Court.6. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025accordance with law. 7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 20258. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged............... 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025arise only at a later stage...................."The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.9674 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.9674 of 2021, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.19.03.2025Internet:YesPage 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025To 1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID at Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, Job Racketing Wing, Team 28, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -600007.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8058 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.8058 of 202519.03.2025Page 10 of 10