CRL OP(MD)/13855/2024 of Janakiraman Vs The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

The second accused has come up with this quash petition to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.32 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.

2. As per the second respondent / defacto complainant case by filing F.I.R before the first respondent is as that the first accused approached him in 2018, to take retirement insurance policies. The first accused is working as Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance. As agreed between the second respondent and the first accused that the second respondent invested retirement policies and paid for the policy amount. The first accused also issued receipts for the policies availed by the second respondent. When the second respondent decided to fore-close the policies during COVID-19 crisis, the HDFC Life Insurance Company found that those receipts are forged one. Therefore, the HDFC insurance refused to honour the policy amount, then, only the second respondent came to know that the first accused forged and cheated him. Having reported the issue with the first accused, the first accused settled Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only) in 2021 and Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only) in 2023. The second respondent having decided to fore-close, the second respondent was at loss of Rupees One Crore and Fifty Lakhs. Having there was no further settlement and the second respondent found that the first accused cheated, forged and created false document laid an F.I.R before the first respondent, which was registered a case, not only the first accused and also the second accused, who is the father of the first accused.

3. As per the complaint given by the second respondent, there is only a stray reference to the allegation that forged certificates were issued by the first accused and his father, which is stated to be not an offence under law. There is no such allegations against the second accused by mentioning overt act or role played by the second respondent. Therefore, this quash petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there may be an insurance policies availing and giving between the second respondent and the first accused, the second accused is no way connected to that business transaction. It is true that the second accused is the father of the first accused. The second accused is aged about 74 years and he has no business transaction with the first accused. As per the F.I.R discloses that the first accused might have been cheated the second respondent and during the course of negotiation, the first accused settled Rs.35,80,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) to the second respondent and for the remaining amount, the second respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent.

5. On reading the entire complaint, there is no specific overt act or role played by the second accused and only in the bottom of the complaint requested that necessary action may be taken against the first accused and the second accused, viz.,

Janakiraman, beyond that there is no such allegation. If there is no direct allegation in the complaint, the police may say that the role of the second accused is to be find out only during the investigation and having no such role or overt act, the second accused cannot be allowed to proceed with the investigation. Therefore, he come up with the quash petition to quash the F.I.R as against the second accused alone.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that though there is no specific overt act as per the complaint, but in the bottom of the complaint, the second respondent stated that action may be initiated against the first accused and his father. Therefore, this F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court Full Bench decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on considering the earlier decisions in large number and culled out the principles emerged therein, holding that the power of quashing should to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and it has been observed in the rarest of rare cases and the Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations and the police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint / F.I.R. does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, the investigating agency finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report before the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

8. Citing the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) argued that the petitioners' case not deserve for quashing, wherein only the F.I.R has been registered and the investigation is going on. After the investigation only, the involvement of the second accused should be ascertained and if at all the investigating officer is felt that there is no real truth in the complaint, he will file a report in this regard.

9. Heard both sides. Perused records. Considered the submissions raised by both sides.

10. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner's case to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.32 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner / A2 is liable to be allowed or not?

11. As per the complaint facts, there was an insurance policy transaction between the second respondent and the first accused. The first accused was working as Branch Manager at HDFC Life Insurance Company. Though second accused is the father of the first accused, he is no way connected to the business transaction, availing insurance policy between the second respondent and the first accused, the first accused collected amount in the year 2018, in different policies together. During COVID – 19 crisis, when the second respondent approached the HDFC Life Insurance to fore- close the policy, then only the second respondent came to know that the forged policy issued, coupled with the receipts, thereby, cheated by the first accused.

12. Before lodging the complaint, the second respondent met the first accused and as per the F.I.R itself, the first accused settled Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only) in 2021 and another Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only) in 2023. Totally a sum of Rs.35,80,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Thousnad only) has been settled by the first accused to the second respondent. Having the second respondent decided to foreclose the insurance policy before its maturity, as per his own case in the F.I.R., he is at loss for an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only), subject to proof. There is no whisper or mention anywhere in the entire complaint against the second accused, except in the prayer column at the bottom of the complaint, wherein it is stated that the first accused and his father, the second accused, cheated the second respondent and caused him mental agony by creating forged documents, and that appropriate action may be initiated.

13. If that is so, there must be some material to show what was the role played by the second accused, whether he conspired with the first accused, whether he colluded with him in the transaction, or whether he put his signature on any of the receipts, etc. No such allegation is stated in the information given by the second respondent against the second accused.

14. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, in the absence of any prima facie material to proceed further, the petitioner has made out a case for considering the quashing of the F.I.R. as against the second accused alone.

15. Looking into the facts of the case, continuing the investigation against the second accused would not serve any useful purpose, as there is no material in the F.I.R. disclosing any overt act or role played by the second accused. Continuing the investigation against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. as against the petitioner. Accordingly, the case against the second accused / petitioner is quashed.

16. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.32 of 2024 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120 (b) I.P.C on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed only as against the petitioner / second accused alone. As far as the first accused is concerned, the first respondent is directed to proceed with the investigation and file a final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

30.09.2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No TO

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P.MURUGAN,J. LS Pre- delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) No.13855 of 2024 30.09.2026