Madras High Court
P.Praveen Kumar vs The State Represented By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.6967 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 11.03.2025
Pronounced on : 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6967 of 2024
and
Crl.MP.Nos.5089 and 5090 pf 2024
P.Praveen Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
Inspector of Police,
Forgery Investigation Wing Team-33,
CCB-II, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
2. R.Devendran ... Respondents.
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.6446 of 2022 pending
on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial
of CCB Cases, Egmore.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
Crl.OP.No.6967 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Praveen Kumar
(Party-in-Person)
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
: Mr.R.Vivekanandan for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.6446 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as first accused in C.C.No.6446 of
2022. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent has registered an FIR in Cr.No.158 of 2021 for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w120B of IPC as
against two accused persons. The first accused is the son and the
second accused is the father. Now, the father died and all the charges
abated as against the second accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
3(i). The second respondent has lodged the complaint
alleging that he is father-in-law of the petitioner's brother Prem
Kumar and married his daughter Charulatha and they are settled in
London. On the strength of power of attorney executed by his son-in-
law, he has lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner's mother
Baby Perumal was running a proprietrix firm in the name and style of
''M/s.National Security Agency'' at Chennai. It is a proprietorship
concern and it is providing security for the property maintained by
the official liquidator appointed by the Courts. She was running the
said security services in several States including Kerala, Andhra
Pradesh, Kolkatta and Tamilnadu.
3(ii). While being so, his son-in-law was appointed as General
Manager for the said agency by his mother on 15.06.2017 and also
as authorized signatory of the cheque. Be that as it may, on
21.07.2018, his mother died. However, suppressing the said fact, the
petitioner and his father in order to grab the entire amount from the
said account of his mother, dealt with the account and
misappropriated to the tune of Rs.5.5 crores for his personal use.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
3(iii). The petitioner also fabricated a letter dated 11.02.2019
as if his father was authorized as additional signatory to operate the
account maintained by Baby Perumal. Further, they have fabricated
document to run the proprietrix firm called ''M/s.National Security
Agency'' such as declaration of ownership by forging the signature as
well as the seal of Notary Public. Thereby, both the accused had
gained more than Rs.5.5 crores. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent police has
registered the FIR in Cr.No.158 of 2021 and after completion of
investigation filed final report. The said final report has been taken
cognizance by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive
Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w120B of IPC in C.C.No.6446 of
2022.
5(i). The petitioner, who appeared party in person submitted
that after the demise of his mother on 21.07.2018, the proprietrix firm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
called '' National Security Agency'' Chennai was being taken over by
the the petitioner's father in order to provide continue service to the
clients and to pay pending salary to their staff. Since the petitioner is
one of the sons, he had no objection to continue the said agency by
his father Perumal.
5(ii) He further submits that while filing income tax returns for
the financial year 2018-2019, his father came to know that TDS is
remitted to his deceased mother and therefore as per their Auditor's
advice to change the ownership of the firm, the petitioner's father
had taken new registration and continued the agency by providing
securities to the clients. Thereafter, the petitioner's father had sent a
communication to their banker namely Union Bank of India,
Kollathur Branch, Chennai on 26.12.2019. Thereby, informed the
demise of the petitioner's mother and also produced the death
certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
5(iii) He also submits that the petitioner's father being the
kartha of family, without opening new account, he operated the said
account by changing the proprietorship. Infact, the second respondent
also filed a partition suit in O.S.No.123 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri and it is pending, in
which, the petitioner's brother prayed that by dividing the suit
properties into two equal shares and allotted ½ share separately to the
petitioner's brother. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the
petitioner. He further submitted that his father already died and
charges levelled against him are now abated.
5(iv) The petitioner also submits that the second respondent
has no locus to lodge any complaint, since the power of attorney
executed in his favour was not adjudicated so far. It is settled law
that the criminal law can be set in motion by any person. The
submission made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
6(i). The learned counsel for the second respondent submits
that without informing the demise of his mother Baby who died
21.07.2018, operated the account of his mother and misappropriated
to the tune of Rs.5.5 crores. They also produced forged documents as
if the accused permitted to operate the account and change the
ownership.
6(ii). The learned counsel for the second respondent further
submits that even according to the petitioner, they have produced
letter to the bank as well as change of proprietrix firm. Immediately
after demise of the petitioner's mother, they had operated the
account without informing the demise of account holder and had
withdrawn the amount to the tune of Rs.5.5 crores. Therefore, the
charges are clearly made out as against the petitioner.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted
that immediately after the demise of the petitioner's mother they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
have operated the account without informing the demise of account
holder and had withdrawn the amount to the tune of Rs.5.5 crores. He
further submitted that the first accused involved in this case is no
more.
8. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.158 of
2021 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 120B of
IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6446 of
2022 by the trial Court and it is pending. In view of the above, there
are specific allegations and materials are available to attract all the
charges against the petitioner.
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
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
inconsistentency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of
2019 dated 17.10.2019) 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 482 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
11. 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.
12. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the
criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the
conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner
to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash
the entire proceedings.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6446 of 2022 on the file
of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB
Cases, Egmore. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds
before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
28.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Vv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for
Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Forgery Investigation Wing Team-33,
CCB-II, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
Vv
Pre-delivery Order
made in
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm )
