[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Saravanaperumal vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.23251 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23251 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.20158 and 20160 of 2025
Saravanaperumal
... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai District.
Crime No.25 of 2017
... Respondents / Complainants
2. Anandanayaki ... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
proceedings in CC No.32/2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai and quash the same as far as the
petitioner is concerned.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.23251 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandiyan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R-2 : Mr.N.Kamesh
ORDER
Preface:
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly a
constitutional safety-valve preserved by statute to secure the ends of
justice and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Yet, such
power is not intended to conduct a mini-trial, sift disputed facts,
weigh competing versions, or decide the ultimate innocence or guilt
of an accused.
2. The present petition presents a familiar but legally delicate
contention. The petitioner asserts that in one case he is the defacto
complainant and victim, while in another case arising out of the same
transaction he has been shown as an accused. The prosecution, on
the other hand, contends that though the two cases may have a
factual connection, they are not legally identical transactions, and
that the petitioner’s liability towards the persons from whom he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directly collected money cannot be extinguished merely because he
claims to have been cheated by another person further down the
chain.
3. It is in this backdrop that this Court is called upon to decide
whether the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2019 deserve to be
interdicted at the threshold.
Case of the prosecution:
4. The prosecution case, as borne out from the complaint,
investigation and final report, is that the son of the 2 nd
respondent/defacto complainant was seeking employment abroad.
The petitioner is alleged to have represented that he could arrange
foreign employment for the son of the defacto complainant. Believing
such representation, the 2nd respondent is stated to have paid a sum
of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner. The specific allegation is that the
said amount was directly paid/deposited to the petitioner, who, after
receiving the money, failed to secure employment abroad and failed
to return the amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner took the
son of the defacto complainant to Delhi on the assurance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arranging employment abroad, left him there, returned to Tamil
Nadu and thereafter failed to fulfil the promise.
5. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent,
the respondent police registered a case for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, final
report was filed for the said offences and the same was taken
cognizance as C.C.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.
Grounds for quash:
6. The petitioner seeks quashment principally on the ground
that the prosecution is mala fide and falls within the seventh
category laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1. It is contended that prior to the
registration of the present case, the petitioner himself lodged a
complaint, which resulted in registration of Crime No.24 of 2017,
wherein he was shown as the defacto complainant.
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the said case, according to the petitioner, seven persons
were originally arrayed as accused. However, after investigation, final
report was filed only against one Balabhaskaran, who had allegedly
received the money from the petitioner. It is further contended that
Balabhaskaran had died on 12.10.2019, whereas the final report in
that case was filed on 19.12.2019, and therefore the police had
mechanically laid a charge sheet against a dead person.
8. The petitioner’s further grievance is that the other accused
persons, particularly A5 to A7 in the earlier case, were deleted from
the array of accused and shown as witnesses, though money was
allegedly transferred to them.
9. According to the petitioner, the very same witnesses figure
in the present case also. Therefore, both cases arise out of one
continuous transaction and the petitioner ought to have been shown
only as a witness in the present case also. It is also contended that
the petitioner had only collected money from the victims and
transferred it to Balabhaskaran and others, and therefore he cannot
be fastened with criminal liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The petitioner also relies upon Mahmood Ali v. State of
U.P.2, to contend that in a proceeding for quash, the Court must look
beyond the plain wording of the FIR and examine the surrounding
circumstances. It is finally contended that the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot go together and that the
continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of
law.
Submissions on either side:
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
case arising out of Crime No.24 of 2017, the petitioner is the defacto
complainant, whereas in the present case arising out of the
complaint of the 2nd respondent, he has been made an accused.
12. It was submitted that both cases relate to the very same
money transaction concerning overseas employment. According to
the petitioner, the money collected from various persons was
transferred to Balabhaskaran and certain other persons, and
therefore the petitioner is also a victim of cheating.
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The learned counsel submitted that though seven persons
were named in the petitioner’s complaint, the police filed final report
only against Balabhaskaran and deleted the other accused persons.
Some of the deleted accused have been cited as witnesses. It was
further submitted that Balabhaskaran had already died before the
final report was filed, and therefore the investigation itself suffers
from serious infirmity.
14. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner
cannot be treated as a complainant in one case and as an accused in
another case when the substratum of both cases is the same. It was
submitted that the prosecution has artificially split one transaction
into two cases. If the petitioner had collected money and passed it on
to Balabhaskaran and others, then he should be examined as a
witness and not prosecuted as an accused.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that no proper
notice was served upon the petitioner regarding deletion of the other
accused persons in the earlier case. On these grounds, it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted that the continuation of the prosecution in C.C.No.32 of
2019 is oppressive, mala fide and liable to be quashed.
16. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
opposed the petition and submitted that two separate FIRs were
registered on two different complaints. It was submitted that in
Crime No.24 of 2017, the petitioner claimed that he had been
cheated by Balabhaskaran and others. However, in the present case,
the victims have directly alleged that they paid money to the
petitioner.
17. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the
petitioner had received money from the defacto complainant and
other witnesses on the promise of securing foreign employment.
Therefore, he cannot escape criminal liability by stating that he
subsequently transferred money to some other person. It was further
submitted that the defacto complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the
petitioner and that documentary materials are available to show
such payment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. The prosecution further contended that the petitioner had
collected money from several persons and that the total amount
involved is about Rs.23,99,000/-. It was submitted that the
petitioner had accounted only for a part of the amount and that a
substantial amount remained unpaid.
19. With respect to the final report filed against
Balabhaskaran, it was submitted that the police came to know of his
death only later, when summons were sought to be served after filing
of the final report. Therefore, there was no deliberate act of filing a
charge sheet against a dead person.
20. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that
the other persons were deleted from the accused array only after
investigation disclosed that they had no intentional role in the
commission of the offence. It was submitted that the present
proceedings disclose disputed questions of fact, including receipt of
money, inducement, entrustment, subsequent transfer,
misappropriation and intention, all of which can be decided only
during trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that
the defacto complainant had directly paid nearly Rs.7,50,000/- to
the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner personally
undertook to arrange foreign employment for the son of the defacto
complainant.
22. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner
took the defacto complainant’s son to Delhi, left him there, returned
to Tamil Nadu and thereafter avoided responsibility. It was therefore
submitted that the allegations disclose clear ingredients of cheating
and criminal breach of trust and that the petitioner must face trial.
Point for consideration:
23. The point that arises for consideration is whether the
proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, for the offences under Sections 406
and 420 IPC, deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Analysis:
24. Section 528 BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
25. The principles governing the exercise of inherent power are
well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court catalogued illustrative categories where criminal
proceedings may be quashed. Equally, the Court cautioned that such
power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
26. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that proceedings may be quashed where there is a legal
bar, where the allegations do not constitute any offence, or where
there is no legal evidence to support the charge.
27. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander5, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that at the stage of quash, the Court must not
3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
4 AIR 1960 SC 866
5 (2012) 9 SCC 460
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appreciate evidence as though conducting a trial, and if the
allegations disclose the ingredients of an offence, the proceedings
ordinarily must continue.
28. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the High
Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or
genuineness of allegations at the threshold. Therefore, the question
is not whether the petitioner will ultimately be convicted. The
question is whether, accepting the prosecution materials at their face
value, the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed.
29. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.
The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are:
i. deception of a person;
ii. fraudulent or dishonest inducement;
iii. delivery of property pursuant to such inducement;
and
iv. dishonest intention at the time of inducement.
6 (2021) 19 SCC 401
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar7, ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the distinction between mere
breach of contract and cheating depends upon the intention of the
accused at the time of inducement.
31. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala8, it was
held that every breach of promise does not amount to cheating, but
where dishonest intention exists from inception, criminal
prosecution is maintainable.
32. In the present case, the specific allegation is that the
petitioner represented that he could secure foreign employment for
the son of the defacto complainant, received Rs.7,50,000/-, took the
candidate to Delhi, left him there and failed to secure employment or
refund the money. These allegations, at this stage, cannot be
brushed aside as a mere civil dispute or failed employment
arrangement.
7 (2000) 4 SCC 168
8 (2015) 8 SCC 293
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33. The allegation of collecting money on the promise of
overseas employment, taking the victim to Delhi and abandoning
him there, if ultimately proved, would prima facie indicate
inducement and dishonest intention.
34. Whether the petitioner genuinely believed that
Balabhaskaran would secure employment, whether he honestly
transferred the amount, whether he retained part of the amount, and
whether he himself was deceived are all matters of evidence.
35. At the stage of quash, this Court cannot accept the
petitioner’s explanation as conclusive and terminate the prosecution.
Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC is prima facie made out
for the purpose of allowing the trial to proceed.
36. Section 406 IPC punishes criminal breach of trust. The
foundational ingredients are:
i. entrustment of property or dominion over property;
ii. dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of
that property; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iii. violation of any legal direction or contract concerning such
entrustment.
37. In S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar9, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that entrustment and dishonest
misappropriation are essential ingredients of criminal breach of
trust.
38. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.10, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that criminal prosecution should
not be used for settling civil disputes, but where the allegations
disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence, the prosecution cannot
be quashed merely because civil remedies may also exist.
39. In the present case, the allegation is not merely that the
petitioner failed to repay money. The allegation is that money was
entrusted to him for a specific purpose, namely, securing foreign
employment. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner did
9 (2002) 1 SCC 241
10 (2006) 6 SCC 736
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not utilise the amount for the stated purpose, did not secure
employment and did not return the amount.
40. The petitioner admits receipt of money, but states that he
transferred it to Balabhaskaran and others. This explanation may be
a defence. It may also be relevant during trial. But it cannot by itself
destroy the prosecution case at the threshold.
41. If the money was entrusted for a specific purpose and the
petitioner dishonestly dealt with it in breach of that purpose, Section
406 IPC may be attracted. Therefore, the charge under Section 406
IPC cannot be quashed at this preliminary stage.
42. The petitioner contends that Sections 406 and 420 IPC
cannot go together. This submission, stated as an absolute
proposition, cannot be accepted.
43. It is true that cheating and criminal breach of trust are
distinct offences. Cheating requires dishonest intention at the
inception, whereas criminal breach of trust postulates entrustment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and subsequent dishonest misappropriation. However, at the stage of
framing charge or taking cognizance, if the allegations disclose
elements of both inducement and entrustment, the prosecution
cannot be quashed merely because both provisions are invoked.
44. In S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar11, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court recognised the distinction between the two offences,
but did not lay down any absolute bar against simultaneous
prosecution where facts justify such invocation.
45. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi12, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a complaint need not reproduce the
ingredients of an offence in exact statutory language, and if the
factual foundation exists, the proceedings ought not to be quashed.
46. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner
induced the defacto complainant to part with money and also
received the money for a specific purpose. Whether the facts
ultimately prove cheating alone, breach of trust alone, both, or
11 (2002) 1 SCC 241
12 (1999) 3 SCC 259
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
neither, is a matter for trial. Therefore, the mere invocation of
Sections 406 and 420 IPC together is not a ground to quash the
proceedings.
47. The principal plank of the petitioner’s argument is that he
is the defacto complainant in Crime No.24 of 2017 and therefore
cannot be an accused in the present case. This Court is unable to
accept such a broad proposition. A person may be deceived by one
person and still be answerable to another person whom he has
independently induced to part with money.
48. The petitioner’s complaint against Balabhaskaran may
show that the petitioner claims to have been cheated in the
subsequent chain of events. But that does not automatically erase
the allegation that the defacto complainant paid money directly to
the petitioner on the petitioner’s assurance.
49. The prosecution has specifically contended that the victims
knew only the petitioner and that they paid money to him. The
defacto complainant also asserts direct payment to the petitioner. If
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner had collected money from the defacto complainant and
had undertaken responsibility for securing employment, his liability
towards the defacto complainant is a matter to be tested on evidence.
The petitioner’s status as complainant in another FIR may be a
defence circumstance. It may be used during cross-examination. It
may even assist the petitioner at trial. But it does not render the
present prosecution inherently illegal. The Court cannot, at this
stage, hold that both cases are one and the same transaction merely
on the petitioner’s assertion.
50. The prosecution case is that the first FIR concerns the
petitioner’s complaint against Balabhaskaran, whereas the present
FIR concerns the complaint of victims who paid money to the
petitioner. The distinction is not illusory on the face of the record.
Therefore, the petitioner’s double status as complainant in one case
and accused in another case is not, by itself, a ground for
quashment.
51. The petitioner has strongly contended that certain persons
originally arrayed as accused in Crime No.24 of 2017 were deleted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and later cited as witnesses. Whether the deletion was proper,
whether protest remedy was available, whether further investigation
ought to have been sought, and whether the deleted persons should
have been prosecuted are issues pertaining to the connected case.
52. The legality of deletion of accused in Crime No.24 of 2017
cannot be decided collaterally in this petition, which challenges
C.C.No.32 of 2019 arising out of the complaint of the 2nd
respondent. Further, the mere fact that a person is cited as witness
in one case does not automatically prohibit the prosecution from
proceeding against another person in a connected case.
53. The evidentiary worth of such witnesses, their role, their
credibility and the propriety of their deletion from the accused array
are all matters that can be tested during trial. At this stage, the
Court cannot quash the proceedings merely because some persons
whom the petitioner considers to be real culprits have been cited as
witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
54. The petitioner has submitted that final report in Crime No.
24 of 2017 was filed against Balabhaskaran after his death. This
circumstance may raise questions regarding the manner in which
Crime No.24 of 2017 was investigated or proceeded with. However, it
does not automatically invalidate the present proceedings in C.C.No.
32 of 2019.
55. The present case rests upon the allegation of the defacto
complainant that money was paid directly to the petitioner. The
death of Balabhaskaran may have evidentiary consequences. It may
affect the petitioner’s ability to establish his defence. It may also be a
circumstance to be considered by the trial Court in appreciating the
prosecution case. But it cannot result in quashing of the case
against the petitioner at the threshold.
56. The prosecution has also explained that the death of
Balabhaskaran came to the knowledge of the police only later.
Whether such explanation is acceptable is not the determinative
issue in the present quash petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
57. The petitioner relies upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal13 and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.14 to contend that the
proceedings are mala fide. In Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.15, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where proceedings appear
manifestly frivolous or vexatious, the Court may look into the
surrounding circumstances and need not confine itself mechanically
to the FIR.
58. However, the said principle cannot be understood to mean
that every defence version must be accepted at the threshold. In the
present case, the materials do not show that the prosecution is
manifestly absurd, inherently improbable or wholly malicious. On
the contrary, the record indicates that the defacto complainant
alleges direct payment to the petitioner; the petitioner admits receipt
of money but offers an explanation that he transferred the amount to
another person.
59. Once receipt of money is not seriously disputed and the
dispute concerns the purpose, transfer, intention and liability, the
13 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
14 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
15 Supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
matter enters the realm of trial. Therefore, this Court is unable to
hold that the case falls under the seventh category of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal16.
60. The following issues require evidence:
i. whether the defacto complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/-
directly to the petitioner;
ii. whether the petitioner induced such payment by
promising foreign employment;
iii. whether the petitioner had dishonest intention at the
inception;
iv. whether the petitioner actually transferred the money
to Balabhaskaran or others;
v. whether such transfer, if true, was bona fide or a
device to escape liability;
vi. whether the petitioner retained any portion of the
amount;
vii. whether the petitioner abandoned the defacto
complainant’s son at Delhi; and
16 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
viii. whether the petitioner’s role was that of an innocent
intermediary or a culpable participant.
61. These are not issues which can be decided in a petition
under Section 528 BNSS. The trial Court alone can appreciate oral
and documentary evidence, test the witnesses in cross-examination
and decide whether the prosecution has proved the offences beyond
reasonable doubt.
Epilogue:
62. Criminal law does not proceed on labels but on legally
provable roles. A person may describe himself as an intermediary,
victim, agent, facilitator or conduit. But when the allegation is that
he directly received money from a complainant on a promise to
secure employment abroad, the Court cannot, at the threshold, close
the prosecution merely because he asserts that he was cheated by
another person in the chain.
63. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is meant to protect
the innocent from baseless prosecution. It is not meant to short-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circuit a prosecution where disputed facts, admitted receipt of
money, competing explanations and allegations of dishonest
inducement require adjudication by evidence.
64. The petitioner may have a defence. He may rely upon his
complaint in Crime No.24 of 2017. He may confront the prosecution
witnesses with the alleged transfer of money. He may contend before
the trial Court that Balabhaskaran was the real offender. But such
defence cannot be converted into a ground for quashing the
prosecution at its inception. This Court therefore finds no ground to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
65. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only
for the purpose of deciding this petition under Section 528 BNSS.
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, shall proceed
with C.C.No.32 of 2019 independently, uninfluenced by any
observation made in this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
66. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all permissible legal and
factual defences before the trial Court in the manner known to law.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudukkottai,
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
