Madras High Court
K.Poopathy vs The State Rep. By on 10 September, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1924 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1924 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15747 & 15750 of 2024
K.Poopathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Branch,
No.26, Shastri Bhawan, 3rd Floor,
Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of
BNSS to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.17638 of 2023 in C.C.No.15526 of 2022 pending on the file of
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.1924 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.Jaishankar Ramakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.15526 of 2022 pending on the file
of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
facing trial for the offence under Section 420 IPC filed a discharge petition
in Crl.M.P.No.17638 of 2023, dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated
14.10.2024. Against which, the present revision petition filed.
2.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant, a Senior
Technician in Hindustan Petroleum retired from service during November
2016 was searching job for his son S.Sathyaprakash, who completed his
Diploma in Mechanical engineering and completed a course in Shipping
and Logistics. During a train journey, the defacto complainant came in
contact with the petitioner/accused who introduced himself as Personal
Assistant to the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust and lured the defacto
complainant by representing that the Chief Engineer is having wide powers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
to appoint a person in Chennai Port Trust to the Post of Assistant Traffic
Manager, a respectable position with good salary, for which he demanded
Rs.1 Crore to secure the job. Thereafter, they had several meetings and
interactions and the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.97 lakhs in cash
and cheque payments between 17.12.2016 and 20.11.2019. This amount
could be arranged from the defacto complainant's retirement benefits,
savings, pledging gold jewels of his daughter, by mortgaging his house
property and through private finance. The defacto complainant's son met
the petitioner/accused in his Office on two occasions and the petitioner
projected, as though steps are taken soon to secure a job for him in the
Chennai Port Trust. The petitioner collected the application of defacto
complainant's son along with other certificates and credentials but later he
started avoiding and not responded to the defacto complainant's calls and on
one occasion, the petitioner sent some henchmen who came to the defacto
complainant's house, threatened him and warned him not to further disturb
the petitioner for return of money. The defacto complainant sent a
complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Chennai Port Trust and later
lodged a complaint to the respondent, who on receipt of the complaint on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
14.12.2020, registered the FIR and finding petitioner using his official
position demanded bribe money for getting a job. Hence, a case under
Sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered, during
investigation, the defacto complainant, his son and others examined,
statements recorded, telephonic conversation between the defacto
complainant's son and the petitioner, recorded in Motorola mobile phone
along with memory card produced, voice samples of the defacto
complainant, his son and the petitioner recorded and sent to forensic
examination. The seized documents collected and sent to handwriting
expert. The bank witnesses and others examined. Thereafter, charge sheet
filed listing 33 witnesses, 97 documents and 3 material objects. Since
charge sheet filed for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the case is now
being tried before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
defacto complainant was doing Real Estate business and also buying and
selling used cars. In this connection, he came in contact with the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
who used to collect money for his requirement and they had some
transactions but later they fell apart. Taking advantage of this relationship,
a false case was projected as though the petitioner demanded money for
securing Assistant Traffic Manager job for the defacto complainant's son at
Chennai Port Trust and received Rs.97 lakhs. The defacto complainant in
the complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Chennai Port Trust alleges that
he paid Rs.95 lakhs but on the contrary in the complaint to the respondent, it
is mentioned that Rs.97 lakhs was paid. The defacto complaint's primary
allegation is that he paid Rs.47 lakhs which is his retirement benefit
deposited in his bank account, namely, Axis Bank and paid to the petitioner
on various dates on 19.02.2017, 07.11.2017 and 05.12.2017 which is totally
false. It is seen that the defacto complainant issued a self cheque dated
21.12.2016 for Rs.47 lakhs and later transferred the said amount of
Rs.47 lakhs from Axis Bank account to Indian bank account, Rs.20 lakhs
deposited as Fixed Deposit and the balance amount was paid to third parties.
A scanned reproduction of the tabular coloumn showing actual transactions
done by the defacto complainant is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
4.From the above transactions, it is clear that the defacto complainant
uttering falsehood and projecting a false case. On this score alone, charge
sheet to be quashed. He would further submit that it is stated that the
defacto complainant pledged his house property with one Shantilal, received
Rs.15 lakhs and paid the amount to the petitioner. From the Encumbrance
Certificate and the Mortgage Deed vide Document No.7345 of 2018
produced as listed document, it is seen that the mortgage is only for
Rs.2.5 lakhs and not for Rs.15 lakhs. Further the defacto complainant stated
that he had given the amount in cash but no details given as to when, where
and through whom cash paid. The defacto complainant making wild
allegations without proof. Since the defacto complainant earlier employed
in Central Government agency and closely associated with CBI during
service, used his contact and projected a false case as though the petitioner
received money for securing a job. The private money transaction between
the defacto complainant and the petitioner for the real estate business is now
magnified and projected falsely as job racketing, a civil dispute given a
criminal colour. He further submitted that the defacto complainant doing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
forum shopping, earlier lodged a complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer,
Chennai Port Trust, due to which, the petitioner was suspended and faced
departmental action. The defacto complainant also lodged complaint to the
Enforcement Directorate who issued summons to the petitioner for enquiry
and thereafter it is left in dormant. He further submitted that the loan
transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is now
projected as a job racketing case. In fact the defacto complainant borrowed
Rs.4 lakhs from the petitioner's son Anish Kumar, Rs.50,000/- from the wife
of the petitioner and another Rs.50,000/- from his relative Sushila, in total,
the defacto complainant has to pay Rs.5 lakhs. The defacto complainant
used to frequently borrow hand loan by cash for his real estate business and
in that score, he has to pay around Rs.3,30,000/-. Some of these
transactions are now projected, as though money received for securing job.
Further even in the statement before the respondent, when these transactions
was enquired, defacto complainant was unable to give proper reasons. In
this case, admittedly the report of voice recording and handwriting expert
opinion sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory [CFSL] is yet to be
received. Thereafter only the defacto complainant's complaint would gain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
some acceptability. Even before receiving the scientific evidence, the
respondent police in a haste filed the charge sheet in this case.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajib Ranjan vs.
R.Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 for the civil dispute and
initiating criminal action. He further relied upon the decision in the case of
Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others
reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 wherein the defacto complainant filed two
complaints one before the Delhi Court and another in Calcutta, finding that
it is a forum shopping, the Apex Court quashed the petition. In this case,
the defacto complainant lodged complaints before the Chief Vigilance
Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Enforcement Directorate and to the CBI which
amounts to forum shopping . Hence prayed for setting aside the impugned
order.
6.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that on the
complaint of the defacto complainant, a case was registered. It is found that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
the petitioner is working as Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer,
Chennai Port Trust and using his official position projected that he could
get Gazetted Officer post to the defacto complainant's son and collected
Rs.97 lakhs. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, FIR registered
for the offence under Sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
During investigation, it was found that the petitioner committed the offence
punishable under Section 420 IPC by cheating and dishonestly inducing the
defacto complainant to part with the money by promising for a job for the
post of Assistant Traffic Manager at Chennai Port Trust for the defacto
complainant's son D.Sathyaprakash and charge sheet filed. Thus, the
investigation revealed that the petitioner received a total sum of Rs.7.85
lakhs from the defacto complainant by way of bank transactions into his
account and also in the account of his family members confirmed by
documents, which are as follows.
(a) Document D-9, Original Cheque No.050423 dated 16.12.2016 issued
in favour of Shri.K.Poopathy for Rs.50,000/- from the saving account
No.622010100012421 of Shri.N Devaraj.
(b) Document D-10, Original paying slip (credit challan) dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
16.12.2016 for account number 006010100781749 of
Shri.K.Poopathy for Rs.50,000/-.
(c) Document D-11, Original Cheque No.050429 dated 04.01.2017
issued in favour of Shri.K.Poopathy for Rs.1,50,000/- from the saving
account No.622010100012421 of Shri.N Devaraj.
(d) Document D-12, Original paying slip (credit challan) dated
05.01.2017 for account number 006010100781749 of
Shri.K.Poopathy for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The above said Documents D-9, D-10, D-11 and D-12 will be
corroborated by the Axis Bank Deputy Manager Shri.P.Siva/L.W.13.
(e) Document D-17, Certified scanned image of Cheque No.733115 for
an amount of Rs.20,000/- in favor of Shri.K.Poopathy and the said
document D-17 will be corroborated by Axis Bank Asst. manager
Shri.E.Karthikeyan L.W.21.
(f) Document D-27, Original Cheque (Cheque No.733109) favouring
Smt.P.Pramila, W/o.Shri.K.Poopathy dated 10.02.2017 for an amount
of Rs.1 lakh along with deposit challan from Shri.N.Devaraj.
(g) Document D-28, Original Cheque (Cheque No.003315) favouring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
Shri.K.Poopathy dated 23.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.25,000/-
along with deposit challan from Shri.N.Devaraj.
(h) Document D-29, Original Cheque (Cheque No.733111) favouring
Shri.K.Poopathy dated 27.01.2017 for an amount of Rs.40,000/-
along with deposit challan from Shri.N.Devaraj. The above said
Documents D-27, 28 & 29 will be corroborated by the SBI Bank
Deputy Manager Shri.Dinesh kannah/L.W.17.
(i) Document D-38, Certified copy of the cheque No.733114 of Indian
Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) for an Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in
favour of Shri.Anissh Kumar, S/o.Shri.K.Poopathy from
Shri.N.Devaraj.
(j) Document D-39, Certified copy of the cheque No.733110 of Indian
Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) for an Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in
favour of Shri.Anissh Kumar, S/o Shri.K.Poopathy from
Shri.N.Devaraj.
(k) Document D-40, Certified copy of the cheque No.733107 of Indian
Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) for an Amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in
favour of Shri.Anissh Kumar, S/o Shri.K.Poopathy from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
Shri.N.Devaraj.
The above said Documents D-38, D-39 and D-40 will be corroborated
by the Indian Bank Assistant Manager Shri.Abhinav
Chandar/L.W.20.
7.It is also evident from the final report that Document D-88 (search
list) drawn in the presence of independent witnesses L.W.29 Shri.Raghu and
L.W.31, Shri.Nitesh Kumar, the respondent recovered documents relating to
Shri.D.Sathyaprakash, namely, the resume along with the photocopies of
Aadhar card, academic certificate such as Transfer Certificate, Course
Completion Certificate and job application of Shri.D.Sathyaprakash
S/o.Shri.N.Devaraj from the office chamber of the accused during the
searches conducted after registration of the instant case.
8.It is further submitted that the compact discs marked as Document
D-93 submitted by the complainant along with the complaint contains the
conversation between his son D.Sathyaprakash and the petitioner/Accused,
it is clear that the petitioner/Accused assured defacto complainant's son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
about the listing of his name in the list of selected candidates for the post of
Assistant Traffic Manager in VOC Port Trust and was also talking about his
posting in Chennai Port Trust. The Material Object marked in the Document
D-92 that the mobile phone of defacto complainant's son in which the
alleged audio conversation was originally recorded was seized and the
collected voice port samples of the accused forwarded to CFSL, Chandigarh
through the Court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge, before the case
transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
Further, at the time of final report the relied upon documents and oral
evidences submitted, is enough to prove the prima facie materials available
for offence under section of 420 IPC and the Trial Court taken the final
report on record, since this case is in the stage of framing of charges, during
the trial the said CFSL report can be considered.
9.It is further submitted that during the search conducted at the office
cabin of the Petitioner/Accused a deed in Rs.20/- stamp paper was
recovered along with other documents (D-89). The said deed dated
03.12.2018 records that a sum of Rs.75 lakhs by way of cash was given by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
the defacto complainant to the petitioner in installments, Rs.15 lakhs on
05.01.2017, Rs.30 lakhs on 06.03.2017, Rs.20 lakhs on 08.07.2017 and
Rs.10 lakhs on 03.05.2018 aggregating to Rs.75 lakhs. The said deed also
states that Rs.75 lakhs was said to be received by the defacto complainant
by way of cash, Rs.30 lakhs on 20.08.2018, Rs.30 lakhs on 12.09.2018 and
Rs.15 lakhs on 03.12.2018. There is no signature of the petitioner in the said
deed. The signature in the name of the defacto complainant and two
witnesses are found in the said deed. When the said deed was shown to the
defacto complainant, he denied the signature found in the said deed as his
signature. The defacto complainant further confirmed that he never
received back Rs.75 lakhs from the petitioner as recorded in the said deed.
The witnesses to the said deed are not available in the said addresses given
in the deed and they are non-existing persons. Thus the said deed was
fabricated by the petitioner dishonestly as an alibi as if he returned the
amount Rs.75 lakhs back to the defacto complainant which he otherwise
accepts in the said Deed the receipt of Rs.75. lakhs from the defacto
complainant. He further submitted that money transactions between the
petitioner and the defacto complainant has been proved by the bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
witnesses, namely, L.W.13, L.W.17, L.W.20 and L.W.21. Hence prayed for
dismissal.
10.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that the petitioner was employed as Personal Assistant to the Chief
Engineer, Chennai Port Trust, the petitioner came in contact with the
defacto complainant and received amounts from the defacto complainant
including Rs.47 lakhs which is his retirement benefits. Further the defacto
complainant mortgaged his property, pledged gold jewels and handed over
the amount to the petitioner on various dates. The petitioner's explanation
that these amounts were paid to him and he had not received money for
securing job has to be decided on facts during trial. In this case, admittedly
during the search in the office cabin of the petitioner, application of defacto
complainant's son, his certificates, credentials seized but no explanation
why these documents collected by the petitioner. Added to it, stamp paper
with the sign of the defacto complainant and two witnesses, recording
petitioner paying back the amount of Rs.75 lakhs on various dates seized.
The defacto complainant denies his signature in these documents, why such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
defensive documents created and kept by the petitioner, there is no
explanation. The voice recording report and handwriting expert opinion to
be received from CFSL. The grounds raised by the petitioner are his
defence, factual in nature which can be decided only during trial and not in
this petition.
11.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Considering the fact that charge sheet filed in the year 2022, three years
passed so far and the trial is yet to commence, the Trial Court is directed to
give preference and complete the trial without any delay, preferably within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is
made clear that the observation made herein is only to the limited purpose to
decide the above petition, the Trial Court to decide the case independently
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
10.09.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Branch,
No.26, Shastri Bhawan, 3rd Floor,
Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
10.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
