CRL OP/26171/2026 of Subramanian Vs The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police on 15 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 324 of 2025 and C.C. No. 40 of 2026, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is engaged in business, extending financial assistance to known and needy persons against secured assets. One Mohan/the first accused approached the petitioner and requested a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- against a property standing in the name of one Anandhavalli/second respondent. The petitioner agreed to advance the amount sought by the first accused. Accordingly, a sale agreement dated 19.12.2022 was executed, which was signed by the fourth accused.

2.1. Subsequently, the petitioner advanced a further sum of Rs.41,00,000/- to the first accused, taking the total principal amount to Rs.71,00,000/-. Considering the substantial amount involved, the petitioner insisted upon additional security. Thereafter, the first accused executed a registered sale deed in his favour through the fourth accused on 01.06.2023. Subsequently, a registered mortgage deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 06.06.2023, registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Selaiyur, as security for the loan amount. It is further alleged that the first accused and the fourth accused had allegedly impersonated the original owner and created a forged sale deed dated 01.06.2023.

2.2. Thereafter, the first accused attempted to sell the property to one Rathina Rajarajan/second respondent for a sale consideration of

Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The said Rathina Rajarajan paid an advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the first accused, out of which, the first accused repaid Rs.75,00,000/- to the petitioner towards full settlement of the loan. On the respective complaints lodged by the second respondent in both Crl.O.P’s, the first respondent registered FIR’s in Crime No.17 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC and in Crime No.20 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120 (b), 506(i) of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final reports and the same were taken cognizance in C.C.No.324 of 2025 and in C.C.No.40 of 2026. To quash the same, the present petitions have been filed.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is doing genuine finance business and merely lend loan to the first accused. He does not have the knowledge of forged sale deed created by the first accused and the fourth accused. Therefore, the alleged offences are not at all attracted as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in these cases.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On a perusal of records, it is revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the aforesaid offences. The grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and can be considered only during trial.

7. 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., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have 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 as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C./180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, 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 consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

9. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.324 of 2025 and C.C.No.40 of 2026 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate - I, Tambaram. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

11. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PAM To

1. The Judicial Magistrate -I, Tambaram.

2. The Inspector of Police City Crime Branch (CCB), Tambaram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. PAM CRL.O.P.Nos.26171 & 26781 of 2026 and CRL.M.P.Nos.17354 & 17338 of 2026 18-09-2026