High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.09.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.18967 of 20251.Parthiban Ramakrishnan2.Gokulakrishnan Ramakrishnan ... Petitioners/A3 & A4Vs.The State represented by:-The Inspector of Police,Chennai CCB-I,Chennai City.(Crime No.103 of 2025) ... RespondentPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of his arrest or in connection with the case in Crime No.103 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioners:Mr.N.ManokaranFor Respondent:Mr.S.UdayakumarGovernment Advocate (Crl.side)For Intervenor:Mr.D.Ferdinandfor M/s.BFS Legal1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025O R D E RThe petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(i) and 120-B of I.P.C., 1860 in Crime No.103 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint got Introduced with the petitioners in the year 2022, and they came to know that the petitioners are carrying Cashew nut export business in the name and style as 'M/s.GKL Food Products Pvt. Ltd ' and that the petitioners had approached the de-facto complainant and requested to render financial assistance to their company which had received a bulk export orders. The complainant had advanced loan amount of Rs.21,30,000/- to the 1st petitioner's company M/s. GKL Food Products Pvt. Ltd from the year 2022 to 2024. Further, the complainant had allegedly transferred Rs.4,76,32,750/- to the 2nd petitioner's company M/s. GKL Constructions from the year 2023 to 2024, and again the complainant had advanced a sum of 1,80,00,000/- from 19.11.2024 to 23.11.2024 to the 1st petitioner for his business. After receiving a sum of Rs.4,76,32,750/- they have allegedly created 100 false invoices and bills as if 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025the Furnitures were supplied to the company, and/18% GST was charged for the invoice bills and no delivery challan was supplied for the goods sent by the petitioners. Further the petitioners failed to repay the amount as per agreement and defrauded the complainant. Further acting contrary to the oral agreement, the petitioners have allegedly sent their money to their friend's company M/s. BLR Billionare Indian P Ltd. Hence, the case.3. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and in order to defeat their claim, the present complaint has been filed. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant had willfully suppressed the pending commercial dispute. In fact, he instituted a Pre Institution Mediation application in TNSLSA No.255/2025/PIMS/9/2025 dated 22.01.2025 before the Tamil Nadu State legal Services Authority, Chennai, ADR Building and the matter was posted on 10.02.2025 for the appearance of the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have already entered into a Pre Institution Mediation before the District Legal Services Authority, Bangaluru and proceedings initiated on 14.03.2025 and the de-facto complainant entered appearance on 02.06.2025 and on 10.06.2025 the mediation was closed as not settled. One day before, i.e., on 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 202509.06.2025, the de-facto complainant lodged the present complaint as if the petitioners defrauded him. It was alleged that pre suit mediation was effected before the commercial suit. But as on date, there is no commercial suit pending between them. Further as per the business transaction, the de-facto complainant also liable to pay Rs.75 Crores for the business transaction with regard to sharing the software development. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioners have fraudulently created documents, fake invoices and cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.26 Crores. Believing their words the de-facto complainant had sent huge sums of money through RTGS.5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed his counter submitting that the defacto complainant Mr.Vignesh Jeevananthan, Proprietor of M/s.BSC, a registered proprietorship firm specializing in interior architecture with offices at T.Nagar and Adayar, Chennai alleges that he has been the victim of financial fraud and criminal conspiracy organized by M/s GKL Food Products Pvt. Ltd., its directors Mr.Gokulakrishnan 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025Ramakrishnan and Mr.Parthiban Ramakrishnan, their associates, M/s GKL Construction, M/s BLR Billionaire India Pvt. Ltd., and one Mr.Lakshmanan and others. In June 2022, Mr.Vignesh was introduced to Mr.Gokulakrishnan Ramakrishnan and Mr.Parthiban Ramakrishnan through a common friend Poorneshprakash. Mr.Gokulakrishnan Ramakrishnan and Mr.Parthiban Ramakrishnan falsely portrayed themselves as successful cashew exporters operating a large-scale unit in Cuddalore and showcased a luxurious lifestyle to appear credible. They framed a story of receiving a high-value international order and urgently needing to fulfil it. They lured the complainant with promises of structured repayment with large profits. Trusting their claims, Mr.Vignesh transferred Rs.27.86 crores from his firm's HDFC Bank account (Adyar Branch) to their company account. However, the accused never repaid the amount. Instead, they issued over 100 fake invoices worth about Rs.4.76 crores for non-existent furniture supplies. No goods were delivered, no delivery challans were issued, GST was fraudulently paid to create a false sense of legitimacy. When questioned by the de-facto complainant, the accused transferred Rs.1.3 crores back to Mr.Vignesh to mislead him. They then made further false promises and induced him to transfer an additional amount of Rs.1.8 crores. After this, the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025accused became unresponsive. Subsequently, One, Mr.Lakshmanan, claiming to be a former Magistrate, called the complainant and issued threats of arrest and false legal cases, if he continued to pursue repayment. This was an attempt to intimidate and silence the complainant through fear and coercion. Mr.Vignesh asserts that this is not a case of business loss, but a well-orchestrated and deliberate act of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and intimidation. 6. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant sought immediate recovery of Rs.26.56 Crore along with large profits, and criminal action against all individuals and entities involved in the conspiracy. Based on the complaint of Tr. Vignesh Jeevanantham, a case in CCB Cr.No. 214/2024 for offence under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 340(2) r/w 61(2) BNS, 2023 was registered by the ACP, EDF-1, CCB and the same was entrusted to the respondent police on the same day and taken up for investigation. It is further submitted that the accused gained the de-facto complainant's trust by projecting a lavish lifestyle and repeatedly emphasizing their business acumen, foreign contracts, and export opportunities. They furnished fabricated documents, purportedly related to 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025export deals, to create an impression of credibility and financial stability. Using these misrepresentations, the accused solicited financial assistance from the defacto-complainant, claiming an urgent requirement of working capital to fulfil a large international export order. Accused Parthiban, the first petitioner herein, and his brother Gokulakrishanan have assured the defacto-complainant that the funds would be repaid through structured instalments with significant profit sharing. They also stated that all transactions would be transparent, formalized through proper banking channels and legal documentation.7. It is further submitted that trusting their various false assurances, the defato-complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.27,86,32,750/- from his firm's HDFC Bank, Adyar Branch bearing Account No. 99939176433999 to the accused company in the name of M/s GKL Food Products Pvt. Ltd, ICICI, Neyveli Branch account in Account No.60980516378, GKL constructions company's IDFC First bank, Kilpauk Branch account in Account No.10146789276 and the accused A3 Parthiban's personal account-i.e HDFC bank, in account No.59108220865522 in multiple transactions between 13.09.2022 and 23.11.2024 to the tune of more than Rs.27 crores.7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 20258. It is further submitted that investigation further revealed that in a deliberate attempt to conceal the fraudulent nature of their activities and create a false trail of legitimate transactions, the accused created over 404 fake invoices to justify financial transfers to the complainant. These invoices were issued in the name of M/s GKL Constructions, No.555/1, Main Road, Marungur, Panruti Taulk, Cuddalore District and were purportedly for the supply of furniture to BSC owned by the complainant. The invoice numbers ranged from 001 to 404 and were dated in the years 2023 and early 2024. However, none of these invoices were supported by delivery challans or evidence of actual delivery or movement of the goods or any other material evidence. The defacto-complainant confirmed that no furniture was delivered to the premises of his company. Despite the fictitious nature of the invoices to give legitimacy to their non-existent business transaction, GST was paid on them, indicating deliberate misuse and manipulation of tax systems to reinforce the appearance of genuine business activity. When the defacto complainant asked the accused about the fraudulent invoices, they informed that these invoices only created for accounting purpose and then transferred Rs.1.3 crore through bank transfer on 04-07-2023. It appears that this payment was made to mislead the defacto-compliant and retain his trust. The 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025defacto-complainant further transferred Rs.1.8 crore to the accused, trusting their assurance that this additional amount would help release the funds allegedly stuck in payment processing.9. It is further submitted that investigation further revealed that the defacto-complainant later realized that the entire scheme was fraudulent. When he followed up regarding the return of his money, he received evasive responses and shifting excuses from the accused over several months. At a later stage, one Mr.Lakshmanan @ Gopilakshmanan contacted the defacto complainant, falsely identifying himself as a Magistrate from a criminal court in Bangalore. He openly threatened the complainant, warning him to refrain from further pressure to repay the money and that he would be imprisoned under fabricated criminal charges. He boasted of his political and judicial influence and threatened to destroy the complainant's career and business. The petitioners, by creating fake documents, indulged in fraudulent activities. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 202510. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for intervenor it is seen that a sum of Rs.26 crores involved in this case and there is fake invoices and other fraudulent documents were relied on by the petitioners, which requires detailed investigation and may also requires custodial interrogation of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.09.2025(1/2)rsi10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025To1.The Inspector of Police, Chennai CCB-I, Chennai City.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18967 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI , J. rsiCrl.O.P.No.18967 of 202511.09.2025(1/2)12/12