CRL OP/30451/2026 of Bilal Hyder Vs Moheb Ismail on 26 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.301 of 2025 filed by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the defacto complainant worked in Singapore and regularly remitted his salary to his wife (the de facto complainant) through banking channels. The accused persons met the defacto complainant and induced her to invest money in their trading company, namely HNFS, promising a monthly interest rate of 14%. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant invested a substantial sum of Rs. 52,50,000/-. However, the accused subsequently failed to pay any returns or refund the principal, thereby cheating her of the entire amount. Consequently, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent, who registered a First Information Report on 28.09.2024 in Cr. No. 428 of 2024 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completing the investigation, the 2nd respondent filed a final report in C.C. No. 301 of 2025, which is currently pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai, against the accused.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 439 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 301 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case

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

6. On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the witnesses, it is revealed that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are sufficient to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

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 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

9. 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.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.301 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However the personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application and the 2nd petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No msv/arl To The Inspector of Police J8 Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MSV CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026 26-10-2026