CRL OP(MD)/4667/2024 of Bhuvana Vs The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

The two accused in Crime No.539 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent is before this Court under this quash petition to quash the said F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case as against the accused is as that the second respondent’s daughter was taking tuition to the petitioners’

children in the second respondent’s house. The petitioners and the second respondent were well known out of the tuition contact. In this circumstances, where the petitioners are running a consultancy regarding online trading in the name of Siva Consultancy approached the second respondent for investing some amount and get benefit. In the said interaction, the second respondent and her daughter Dhanapavithra invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on 22.11.2018; Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on 07.12.2018 and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on 15.02.2020, totally a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the petitioners online trading business. For the such payment made by the second respondent and her daughter, the petitioners issued a cheque bearing No.469432 dated 15.02.2020 and two forgery investment agreement. When the second respondent asked the said amount, in later part, at that time, the petitioners abused the second respondent with filthy language. Then the second respondent approached the Magistrate Court by filing complaint under Sections 156(3) and 190 read with 200 of Cr.P.C, before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and on direction, the first respondent registered the case against the petitioners for the offences mentioned hereinabove.

3. The defence case is as that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent’s daughter Dhanapavithra and the version of the second petitioner and the friend of the second petitioner, viz., Ponnusamy, who gave two unsigned cheques in the year 2018, to get loan from Subramanian. After demise of the said Ponnusamy, in order to collect the loan amount, Subramanian asked the second respondent to give the cheques and collect the amount, but the defacto complainant’s daughter / Dhanapavithra filed a cheque bounce case against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.6026 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy. Pending that case, the petitioners repaid a sum of Re.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the second respondent. By giving criminal colour to the money dispute, the false complaint has been filed. Thereby, this quash petition has been filed.

4. The grounds raised in the quash petition is as that:

(i) F.I.R is purely abuse of process of law;

(ii) The entire criminal case is purely civil in nature and the respondents have given a criminal colour;

(iii) the second respondent’s daughter filed a cheque case against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.6026 of 2026, which is pending;

(iv) The F.I.R in this case and the cheque bounce case are only one transaction, thereby this F.I.R is to be quashed;

(v) The petitioners repaid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the second respondent and having a civil dispute making the criminal colour is liable to be quashed;

(vi) The offence does not make out against the petitioners, therefore, the F.I.R is liable to be quashed.

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

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the quash petition is to be allowed or not?

7. As per the facts narrated in the quash petition, coupled with the F.I.R, the petitioners, who are wife and husband, did not dispute the receipt of a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the second respondent on different dates in connection with the online trading business. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have repaid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the second respondent and there will be a balance of Rs.6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Thousand only). It is also stated by the petitioners that they issued Cheque No. 469432, dated 15.02.2020, in favour of the second respondent as security towards the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) received by them.

8. According to the petitioners, the said cheque was subsequently misused by the daughter of the second respondent, viz., Dhanapavithra, who presented the cheque for encashment in her name and the cheque was returned as “bounced”. Thereafter, Dhanapavithra filed a cheque bounce case in S.T.C. No.6026 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, which is pending. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a monetary transaction. Hence, the petitioners contend that the F.I.R is devoid of merits and is liable to be quashed.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that, though there may be a cheque bounce case between the petitioners and the daughter of the second respondent, the allegations contained in the complaint disclose the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the first respondent registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. It was further submitted that, as per the allegations in the complaint, when the second respondent demanded repayment of the amount, the accused allegedly criminally intimidated and threatened her. It is also alleged that the amount deposited by the second respondent was dishonestly misappropriated by using forged documents.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that these are matters requiring investigation and are triable issues which can be determined only after the investigation is completed. Therefore, the F.I.R. ought not to be quashed at this stage, particularly since an F.I.R. is not expected to be an encyclopedia containing all the details of the prosecution case.

The registration of the F.I.R. sets the criminal law in motion, and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be ascertained only through investigation.

11. 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 & 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 quashing power 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.

12. Though there was a cheque bounce case between the petitioners and the second respondent's daughter, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in which the petitioners were convicted and there is an appeal. It is the contention of the petitioners that for the same cause of action for cheque bounce, this complaint has been filed is not at all acceptable, wherein though there was a transaction between the petitioners and the second respondent's daughter and it may be a money transaction or cheque bounce, wherein the competent Court convicted the petitioners and the appeal is pending before this Court.

13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners are carrying on an online trading business, in which the second respondent and her daughter had paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) with the expectation of earning profits. However, the said amount was not fully repaid despite repeated demands made by the second respondent.

14. It was further submitted that, though a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) had been repaid by the petitioners, as stated in the quash petition, the remaining amount has not been repaid. When the second respondent demanded repayment of the outstanding amount, the accused allegedly criminally intimidated and threatened her. It was also submitted that the agreement issued by the petitioners was allegedly forged. Therefore, the allegations disclose the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, which require proper investigation.

15. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the plea of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour cannot be accepted. The allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offences, and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be ascertained only through a proper investigation. Therefore, it was submitted that the request of the petitioners to quash the F.I.R. is not sustainable and that the quash petition is liable to be dismissed, leaving the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that none of the grounds raised by the petitioners deserve merit and its are rejected. The point is answered against the petitioners.

16. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The first respondent is directed to investigate the matter and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.09.2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes NCC:Yes/No

LS TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruverambur Police Station, Trichy District.

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

DR. P. MURUGAN,J. LS Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P(MD) No.4667 of 2024 30.09.2026