The Inspector of PoliceEDF-III v. Mr.D.VeerakumarFor

CRL OP No. 29060 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRACRL OP No. 29060 of 20251. R.KesavanLate Rajendran, No.4/390, North Street, Chozhanganallur, Puzhuthikudi, Thiruvarur, Mannarugudi-614 7082. M.GanesanS/o.Moorthy, No.44/1, Rajaji 3rd Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Inspector of PoliceEDF-III, New Team , Previously EDF-II, Team IX-A, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai-600 0072.J.New ManS/o.late. John raj, No.57, North street, Crawford, trichyRespondent(s)https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 29060 of 2025PRAYERTo quash the final report filed by the 1st respondent in CC.No.6202/2018 pending on the file of the Honble Metropolitan Magistrate for CBCID and CCB Cases at Egmore as against the petitioners A6 and A7.For Petitioner(s):Mr.D.VeerakumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) For R1ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the final report filed by the 1st respondent in CC.No.6202/2018 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CBCID and CCB Cases at Egmore as against the petitioners viz., A6 and A7.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are respectively drivers of the main accused. Their names have been unnecessarily dragged in this case. Since there happens to be some financial transaction between these petitioners and the main accused company, the petitioners have been added in the case. However, there was no common https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 29060 of 2025intention along with main accused in respect of allegation of cheating funds of the de facto complainant. He would further submit that absolutely there is nothing as if these petitioners induced the defacto complainant for deposit of funds in the petitioner's company started in their names or the other company of the main accused.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that petitioners though claimed to be drivers of the main accused, they have floated several partnership firms along with other main accused. Thereby, the de facto complainant was cheated by them. There are materials to implicate these petitioners and there are substantive materials to show that certain amounts have gone into the accounts of the petitioners and there is common intention along with other accused in cheating the de facto complainant for funds and there are also other materials to show the petitioners' involvement in the case.

The Calendar Case is of the year 2018 and charges have been framed and the case now is posted for examination of L.W.1 on 04.11.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 29060 of 20255. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners personal appearance before the trial court may be dispensed with, unless their presence is required for the purpose of progress of trial. He would further submit that they are also ready to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will be duly represented by a counsel before the Trial Court on all hearing dates and they will be present before the Trial Court for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of judgment and for any other purpose, as may be required by the Trial Court for the purpose of progress of trial.

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that all the grounds can be raised before the Trial Court and there is no merit in the quash petition.

However, accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court is dispensed with. The petitioners are directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 29060 of 2025as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners at paragraph 5, supra. If the petitioners adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their appearance and deal with them in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.