[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
V.Muruganantham vs The State Rep.By on 24 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).No.4089 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 17.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).No.4089 of 2024
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.3235 of 2024
V.Muruganantham ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The State rep.by
The Inspector of Police
Keeramangalam Police Station
Pudukkottai District
Crime No.93 of 2023
2.Shagul Hameed ....Respondents
Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R in Crime No.93 of 2023 on the file
of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
: Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R2
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.4089 of 2024
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.93
of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the F.I.R
wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections
406, 420 and 507 of I.P.C.
2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the accused person is said to have
borrowed a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in the year
2017 in two instalments for doing business. Though on several occasions,
demand was made by the defacto complainant, he had not acceded to his
request. On 07.12.2022 at about 9.00 a.m, the accused is said to have
contacted the defacto complainant over phone and threatened him with dire
consequences.
3.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
a bare perusal of the F.I.R indicates that the complaint has been filed with an
ulterior motive as it is preferred after a period of six years from the date of
alleged borrowal knowing fully well that a civil suit is barred by limitation.
Therefore, the defacto complainant has given a criminal colour to the alleged
business transaction. He further submitted that mere non-payment of money
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
would not attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
4.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the
entrustment of property is the basic requirement to consider an offence under
Section 406 I.P.C and in the absence of any material to substantiate that the
property was entrusted and the same was dishonestly misappropriated, the
petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 406 of I.P.C. The learned
senior counsel had further submitted that for prosecuting the petitioner under
Section 507 of I.P.C, threat must be real and by virtue of such threat, the
person who had complained of such threat would have been frightened by
such threat to bring home the offence under Section 507 I.P.C.
5.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that only if the
communication is anonymous in nature, Section 507 I.P.C can be invoked.
However, when the F.I.R discloses that the alleged communication was made
by the accused person from his mobile number, Section 507 I.P.C cannot be
invoked. The learned Senior Counsel had relied upon a decision of this Court
reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 6458 (Mathivanan Vs. Inspector of Police
and others) and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 823 (Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another) and (2024) 12 SCC 483 (Lalit Chaturvedi and others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) in support of his submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant
submitted that the F.I.R prima facie discloses the offences under Sections
406, 420 and 507 I.P.C. Whether the petitioner has threatened the defacto
complainant through mobile phone or not is the subject matter of
investigation. He further submitted that he has got call recording to indicate
that he had been threatened by the accused person. He had also defamed the
religion of the defacto complainant. When the F.I.R discloses a prima facie
case as against the accused, this Court may not interdict with the
investigation process. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
8.A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the accused is said to have
borrowed Rs.60,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in the year 2017 for
running a business and he had not returned the same and committed the
breach of trust. It is alleged that on 07.12.2022, the accused had threatened
the defacto complainant through by mobile phone with dire consequences.
This is the sum and substance of the F.I.R.
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2024 (10)
SCC 690 (Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another) wherein Paragraph Nos. 51 & 52 has held as follows:
“51. If it is the case of the complainant that a particular
amount is due and payable to him then he should have filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
civil suit for recovery of the amount against the appellants herein.
But he could not have gone to the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating and
criminal breach of trust. It appears that till this date, the
complainant has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the amount
which according to him is due and payable to him by the
appellants. He seems to have prima facie lost the period of
limitation for filing such a civil suit.
52.In such circumstances referred to above, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding would be nothing but
abuse of the process of law.”
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 12 SCC 483 (Lalit
Chaturvedi and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) in Paragraph
Nos.9 and 10 has held as follows:
9.We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint
are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420
read with Section 415 of the IPC is not established in the absence
of deception by making false and misleading representation,
dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or
inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time
of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the
offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments.
A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the
appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which
discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of
money.
10.The chargesheet also refers to Section 406 of the IPC,
but without pointing out how the ingredients of said section are
satisfied. No details and particulars are mentioned. There are
decisions which hold that the same act or transaction cannot
result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust
simultaneously. For the offence of cheating, dishonest intention
must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of
criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between
the parties whereby one party entrusts another with the property
as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later.”
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2025 INSC
869 (Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R.Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others) in Paragraph No.13 has held as follows:
“13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit
or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money.
It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money
till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a
civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information
Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse
of process of law.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
12.The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra will
clearly disclose that mere non-repayment of the loan amount would not
attract the criminal offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Without filing a civil
suit for recovery of money before the competent civil Court, the defacto
complainant cannot seek help of the police to recover money from the
accused. That apart, there is no allegation whatsoever in the complaint that
dishonest intention was existing from the inception of the transaction. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of
Section 420 I.P.C have not been made out.
13.As far as invocation of Section 406 I.P.C is concerned, first of all
there should be an entrustment of property at the hands of the accused. A
normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not
amount to entrustment. In such circumstances, Section 406 I.P.C is also not
attracted. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra,
has categorically held that the same act cannot result in an offence of cheating
or criminal breach of trust simultaneously.
14.As far as the offence under Section 507 I.P.C is concerned, unless
the criminal intimidation by way of anonymous communication or having
taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the
threat comes, an offence under Section 507 I.P.C is not made out. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
present case, even as per allegation in the complaint, the accused is said to
have called from his mobile number and there is no allegation whatsoever
that he had screened his number or the defacto complainant was not able to
identify the caller. The complaint clearly points out that the accused had
called the defacto complainant and threatened him. In such circumstances, the
ingredients of 507 I.P.C have not been made out.
15.Considering the fact that for recovery of money, a complaint has
been lodged and the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 507
I.P.C have not been made out, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but abuse of
process of law.
16.In view of the above said facts, the F.I.R in Crime No.93 of 2023 on
the file of the first respondent stands quashed. This Criminal Original Petition
is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24-03-2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Keeramangalam Police Station
Pudukkottai District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and
24.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:25 pm )
