Madras High Court

Selva Kumar vs State Rep. By on 4 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                          Crl.O.P.No.13147 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 04.04.2025

                                                               CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.13147 of 2023
                                                             and
                                                  Crl.M.P.No.7977 of 2023

                     1. Selva Kumar

                     2. V.Jeyalakshmi                                                          ... Petitioners


                                                                   Vs
                     1. State rep. by
                        Inspector of Police,
                        Ranipet Police Station,
                        Ranipet,
                        Crime No.50/2023.

                     2. Musthafa

                     3. The District Crime Branch,
                        Ranipet.                                                ... Respondents
                        (R3 is suo motu impleaded as per order dated 14.03.2024)

                                  Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
                     call for the records in Crime No.50/2023 on the file of the first respondent
                     and quash the same.



                     1/11




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )
                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.13147 of 2023

                                  For Petitioners       : Mr.V.Karnan

                                  For Respondents       : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                          (for R1 & R3)

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

Crime No.50 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the

offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) of IPC.

2. As the entire investigation in Crime No.50 of 2023 has been

transferred to the District Crime Branch, Ranipet, it has been suo motu

impleaded as the third respondent by order dated 14.03.2024.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de-

facto complainant, who is the Proprietor of Everwin Tanners, is approached

by the petitioners for supply of Wet Blue, which is the raw material used in

the leather tanneries. The second respondent visited the unit called M/s. Win

Hide Pvt. Ltd., and he supplied the materials based on the assurance that the

petitioners would repay the dues on specific time limit, but the petitioners

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

failed to repay the payments for the materials supplied. Therefore, a sum of

Rs.13,57,875/- is due from the petitioners. When the second respondent

approached the petitioners, they refused to return the amount and threatened

the second respondent with dire consequences. Based on the complaint of

the second respondent, case in Crime No.50 of 2023 was registered as

against the petitioners.

4. Though notice has been served, the second respondent has not

entered appearance, either in person or through Counsel. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the first and third respondents perused the materials available

on record.

5. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that there is a

business transactions between the petitioners and the second respondent.

Till 2022, there was no issue between them and their business was in a

proper manner. Finally, the petitioners were in due of Rs.13,57,875/- and

though the second respondent asked the petitioners to return the same, they

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

refused to repay the said amount. Therefore, it is clear business transaction

and no offence is made out under Section 420 of IPC.

6. It is well settled that in order to bring the charge for the offence

under Section 420 of IPC:

(i)the accused must fraudulently or dishonestly made some false

compromise.

(ii)the defacto complainant must act on the strength of such false

representation or compromise.

7. In the case on hand, the petitioners neither made any dishonest

nor any fraudulent representation to the second respondent. Therefore, the

offence under Section 420 of IPC is not at all made out as against the

petitioners.

8. Perusal of the entire allegations made in the FIR reveals that

even according to the second respondent, the entire allegations are related

to money transactions between them. Therefore, the criminal prosecution is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

used as an instrument to harass the petitioners and as such, the present FIR

has been registered with an ulterior motive and it cannot be sustained as

against the petitioners.

9. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment made by the

Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Indian Oil

Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], held

that the civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability and it is

necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circle to convert

purely civil dispute in criminal case. This is obviously on account of

prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not

adequately protect the interest of lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen

in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of

marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could

somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of

imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claim which do

not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal

prosecution should be deprecated and dishonoured.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

10. In the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2000

(2) SCC 636], the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as follows:-

“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

11. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is

concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are

main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause

any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do

any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main

ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the

prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioners were only empty

threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

12. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgement of this

Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis

Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-

“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.”

13. It is also relevant to extract the judgement reported in (1992)

SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of

case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,.....

...................

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.

14. In view of the above, the impugned FIR cannot be sustained

and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Cr.No.50 of 2023

pending on the file of the third respondent is hereby quashed.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.04.2025

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation/Yes/No kv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:03 pm )

1. The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet.