CRL OP(MD)/2791/2025 of Elangovelrajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 11 November 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the fourth accused in P.R.C.No.584 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, seeking to quash the charge sheet, in which he stands charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the prosecution case:-

2. The second respondent is a businessman hailing from Bangalore. In September 2018, he came to be introduced to A1-Rajendran, A2- Murugaiah and A3-Boopathy, who held out a promise that they would arrange a loan of Rs.75 crores for him. Believing the said representation, the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.1.5 crores to A1 on 12.10.2018 towards commission at the rate of 2%. He also handed over 14 signed blank cheque leaves and 6 signed blank promissory notes by way of collateral security. However, no loan was ever arranged. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.41 of 2018 came to be registered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai, on 20.12.2018 against A1 to A3. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the CBCID and the case was re-registered as Crime No.4 of 2021.

3. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and has been arrayed as an accused only in the final report. According to the final report, the petitioner was in the company of A1 to A3 and made use of one of the signed promissory notes. The said promissory note was filled up for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, as if it had been executed in the year 2016 in favour of A1, and the petitioner is said to have instituted a suit in O.S.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, on the strength of the said promissory note. The relevant paragraph of the final report concludes that A4-Elangovelrajan has committed the offence under Section 471 of I.P.C. In the counter affidavit dated 11.03.2025, the first respondent has placed reliance upon the statements of L.W.12- Marichamy, L.W.14-Omprakash, L.W.15-Ramraj and L.W.16- Kubendran. According to L.W.14-Omprakash, an Advocate Clerk, on 26.11.2018, he filled up the blanks in the already signed promissory note at the petitioner's office as dictated by the petitioner, for which he was paid Rs.500/-. L.W.15-Ramraj and L.W.16-Kubendran, who were the drivers of A1, have signed as attesting witnesses. L.W.12-Marichamy has stated that he signed certain papers in the petitioner's office, and that a cheque of the second respondent for Rs.15 lakhs was later presented in his name and returned unpaid. The suit in O.S.No.220 of 2018 came to be dismissed for default on 09.03.2020.

Submissions of the learned counsel on either side:-

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that every act alleged against the petitioner was done only in his professional capacity as the counsel for A1. It is his submission that the promissory note bears the admitted signature of the second respondent and was voluntarily handed over by him to A1, and that, in view of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the completion of such an instrument by its holder would not amount to the making of a false document. He would further submit that the petitioner neither wrote nor signed the promissory note and hence, he cannot be termed its "maker". The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the final report itself attributes only the offence under Section 471 of I.P.C. to the petitioner, and even then, it records that he "had reason to believe that it is the original document".

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that there is absolutely no allegation of inducement or delivery of property as against the petitioner, and that there is no material whatsoever to show any agreement between the petitioner and A1 to A3. He would also point out that the allegations relating to the cheque do not find a place in the final report. According to him, the petitioner has been roped in merely because he filed a suit on behalf of A1.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner dictated the contents of the promissory note to L.W.14, as if the second respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from A1 on 10.02.2016, whereas the second respondent was introduced to A1 only in September 2018. He would further submit that the petitioner thereafter made use of the said promissory note to file a money suit. It is his further submission that L.W.12 and L.W.13 have given statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which lend support to the case of the prosecution, and that the ingredients of Sections 463 and 471 of I.P.C. are clearly attracted. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the veracity of the evidence is a matter to be tested by the trial Court, and hence, he prayed that the trial may not be interdicted at this stage.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Discussion:-

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the materials collected by the prosecution, if taken at their face value, would disclose the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner/A4. Forgery, as defined under Section 463 of I.P.C., requires the making of a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of I.P.C. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the signature found on the promissory note is that of the second respondent, who himself delivered it to A1. The blanks were filled up by L.W.14-Omprakash, whom the prosecution has cited only as a witness and not as an accused. The attestations were made by L.W.15 and L.W.16. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner wrote or signed any part of the document. The counter affidavit itself states that the petitioner "only dictated the version". Therefore, even on the prosecution's own showing, the petitioner cannot be said to be the maker of the document.

10. The promissory note was signed and delivered by the second respondent himself to A1. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confers upon the holder of such an instrument prima facie authority to complete it. Whether A1 completed it in excess of the authority given to him is a matter purely between A1 and the second respondent. There is no material to show that the petitioner was aware of the terms on which the note was delivered or that he knew that no debt was due. In the absence of any material indicating a dishonest or fraudulent intention on his part, the offence under Section 465 of I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner. Sections 467 and 468 of I.P.C. are only aggravated forms of the same offence and must necessarily fall along with it. In fact, the counter affidavit does not even attempt to sustain the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.

11. Section 471 of I.P.C. requires that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forged document. The final report itself records that the petitioner "had reason to believe that it is the original document" at the time of filing the suit. A belief on the part of the accused that the document is genuine is wholly inconsistent with the knowledge that Section 471 of I.P.C. contemplates. That apart, the suit was filed by A1, and the petitioner was only A1's counsel. The mere act of an Advocate filing his client's document in his client's suit, on instructions, would not by itself amount to fraudulent use of a forged document.

12. The offence of cheating requires deception of a person, whereby that person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the existence of a dishonest intention at the time of such inducement. The second respondent parted with Rs.1.5 crores and the signed instruments on or before 12.10.2018, on the representations made by A1 to A3. There is not a shred of material to show that he ever met the petitioner or that he was induced by the petitioner to deliver anything. The only act attributed to the petitioner is the filing of O.S.No.220 of 2018. The second respondent contested the said suit by filing a written statement on 21.10.2019, and the suit itself came to be dismissed for default on 09.03.2020. Nothing was received under the suit and no property was delivered. Hence, the ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. are wholly absent insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

13. The very essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner aided the other accused. Aiding, however, is a facet of abetment under Section 107 of I.P.C. and not of conspiracy. There is no material placing the petitioner in any meeting or communication with A1 to A3 when the alleged loan transaction was conceived and carried out during September and October 2018. Nor is there any material connecting him with the alleged loan scheme. The object of the alleged conspiracy, namely, obtaining Rs.1.5 crores, had already been achieved well before the act attributed to the petitioner on 26.11.2018. Thus, the charge of conspiracy against the petitioner is not supported by any material.

14. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations relating to the cheque presented in the name of L.W.12-Marichamy do not find a place in the final report. The petitioner must be tested only on the accusations contained in the final report on which cognizance was taken, and those accusations cannot be enlarged by averments made in a counter affidavit. In any event, the statement of L.W.12 recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. attributes the arrangement only to A1-Rajendran. It does not state that the petitioner filled up, held or presented any cheque. The counter affidavit itself puts the matter no higher than an inference that the signature "must have been misused". It is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of material. An Advocate cannot be prosecuted along with the other accused for acts done in his professional capacity. The position would be different only where there is tangible material to show that he was an active participant in the plan to defraud, in league with the other conspirators. In the present case, the acts attributed to the petitioner are drafting, issuing a lawyer's notice and filing a suit on behalf of his client. There is no material to show that the petitioner received any portion of the amount or that he had any prior association with the alleged loan scheme. The prosecution itself admits that the petitioner's role did not figure in the First Information Report, and that he came to be arrayed as an accused only in the final report filed nearly six years thereafter. The remedy of the second respondent in respect of the disputed promissory note lies only before the civil Court, where he has, in fact, successfully contested the suit.

15. Taking the materials collected by the prosecution at their face value, this Court is of the considered view that they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 465,

467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner. The case squarely falls within categories (1) and (3) enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Compelling the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial on such materials would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

16. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined only to the case of the petitioner/A4. The trial Court shall decide the case against the other accused on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein.

Conclusion:-

17. In the result, the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.584 of 2024, now numbered as C.C.No.654 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner/A4 is concerned.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RJR

To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID OCU, Madurai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR Pre delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025 11.11.2026