Madras High Court
Kanumuru Indira Priyadarshini vs The Superintendent Of Police, on 8 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 30.06.2026
Pronounced on : 08.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and
751 of 2024
and
Crl.MP.Nos.19219, 19220, 19980, 19987, 19989, 19992 of 2023 and
494 of 2024
and
Crl.MP.Nos.10118, 10122, 10119, 10124, 10121, 10123 and
10120 of 2024
Kanumuru Indira Priyadarshini ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.27727 of 2023)
Narayana Prasad Bhagavathula ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.27736 of 2023)
Sri.Ramachandra Iyer Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.28718 of 2023)
Ambedkar Rajkumar Ganta ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.28722 of 2023)
Dumpala Madhusudhana Reddy ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.28725 of 2023)
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishna Raju ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.28726 of 2023)
Kanumuru Rama Devi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.No.751 of 2024)
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Banking Securities Fraud Branch,
New Delhi-110003
(Ref: Cr.No.RCBD1/2021/E/0002
dated 24.03.2021)
2. S.Ravichandran,
Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Management Branch,
No.32, Red Cross Building,
Indian Red Cross Society,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008 … Respondents
CRL OP No. 27727 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.No.RCBD1/2021/E/0002 dated 24.03.2021 on the file of
the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Banking Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the petitioner
and pass any such further / other orders.
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
CRL OP No. 27736 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.No.RCBD1/2021/E/0002 dated 24.03.2021 on the file of
the Superindent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the petitioner and pas
any such further other orders.
CRL OP No. 28718 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quas the FIR
bearing Cr.NO. RCBD1/2021/E/002 dated 24.3.2021 on the file of the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
Securities Fraud Brnach, New Delhi as against the petitioner.
CRL OP No. 28722 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.NO. RCBD1/2021/E/002 dated 24.3.2021 on the file of the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the petitioner.
CRL OP No. 28725 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.NO. RCBD1/2021/E/002 dated 24.3.2021 on the file of the
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the petitioner.
CRL OP No. 28726 of 2023
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.NO. RCBD1/2021/E/002 dated 24.3.2021 on the file of the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the petitioner.
CRL OP No. 751 of 2024
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
bearing Cr.No.RCBD1/2021/E/0002 dated 24.03.2021 on the file of
the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Banking Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi as against the Petitioner
and pass any such further/other orders that this Honble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Krishnan
(in all Crl.OPs) Senior Advocate,
for Mr. Anirudh Krishnan
For Respondents :
For R1 Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2
(in all Crl.Ops) Mr.M.L.Ganesh
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
COMMON ORDER
These Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR registered in
Crime No. RCBD1/2021/E/0002 for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. There are eight named accused in the case, of whom the
petitioners have been arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 8. The first
accused is the Company, and the petitioners (A2 to A8) have been
implicated in their capacity as its Directors.
3. The case of the prosecution, as set out by the second
respondent, is that the first accused Company, namely M/s. Ind Barath
Power Gencom Limited, is one of the largest producers of electricity
in Tamil Nadu. The Company primarily had business dealings with
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO). It is alleged that TANGEDCO failed to make
5/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
payments due to the first accused Company, which was the genesis of
the financial difficulties faced by the Ind Barath Group. As on
30.06.2017, a sum of Rs.157,85,71,585/- was receivable by the first
accused Company from TANGEDCO. Owing to TANGEDCO’s
failure to make the payments, the first accused Company found it
difficult to meet the claims of its creditors. Consequently, the
creditors approached this Court and obtained prohibitory orders
restraining TANGEDCO from releasing the amounts specified in the
respective applications to the first accused Company.
4. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated before the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, which came to be
dismissed. An appeal preferred against the order of dismissal was
admitted, and subsequently a compromise was arrived at before the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which was
recorded by order dated 29.05.2018. As on the date of settlement,
TANGEDCO owed a total sum of Rs.229 crores to the first accused
Company and its group of companies. However, on account of default
in repayment of its loans, the first accused Company’s account was
6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the company was
admitted into insolvency proceedings.
5. It is further alleged in the FIR that the accused perpetrated a
fraud upon the consortium of banks by diverting funds and
manipulating the books of accounts with the intention of defrauding
the banks and obtaining unlawful gain from the bank funds. The
alleged fraud came to light pursuant to the Forensic Audit Report
submitted by M/s. BDO India LLP dated 24.07.2020. The forensic
audit covered the period from 28.05.2012 to 28.05.2017 and was
commissioned pursuant to the decision taken by the consortium of
banks in the Joint Lenders’ Meeting held on 21.02.2020. Based on the
findings of the forensic audit, the account of the first accused
Company, namely M/s. Ind Barath Power Gencom Limited, was
classified as “Fraud” by the Fraud Identification Committee of the
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Resolution Group, Mumbai, in its
meeting held on 14.09.2020. It is further stated that the account of the
Company had already been classified as a Non-Performing Asset
(NPA) with effect from 28.05.2017. Hence, the present case.
7/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
6. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, submits that
the accused persons, namely A5, A7 and A8, are Independent
Directors of M/s. Ind Barath Power Gencom Limited, the first
accused Company, and that they were in no way connected with the
day-to-day affairs of the Company. According to him, they neither
committed any fraud nor were they involved in the alleged diversion
of funds of the first accused Company.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioners are experts in their respective fields and were inducted as
Independent Directors of M/s. Ind Barath Power Gencom Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “the Company”). He invited the attention of
this Court to the definition of an “Independent Director” under the
Companies Act, 2013, and contended that the petitioners have been
unnecessarily roped into the FIR merely by virtue of the offices held
by them. According to him, there are no specific allegations against
any of the petitioners.
8/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
8. He further submits that the first accused Company had
availed term loans from the consortium of banks to the tune of
Rs.493.72crores and working capital facilities to the tune of
Rs.316crores. The Company was pushed into financial distress owing
to the non-payment of dues by the purchasers of electricity generated
by the Company.
9. Though the Company approached the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) and obtained an order dated 29.05.2018
directing TANGEDCO to pay a sum of Rs.229.3crores, the said
amount has not been paid till date. Consequently, the consortium of
bankers initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by filing C.P. (IB) No.187/7/HDB/2019
before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the
Company, wherein a Resolution Professional was appointed by order
dated 13.11.2019.
9/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
10. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors, constituted under
the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, in its meeting
held on 21.01.2020, commissioned a forensic audit by M/s. BDO
India LLP. Based on the Forensic Audit Report, the account of the
Company was classified as “Fraud”. The said classification was
reported to the first respondent, which ultimately resulted in the
registration of the present FIR.
11. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
Company and some of its Directors had earlier challenged the FIR
before this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos.7968 and 8626 of 2021, and the said
petitions were dismissed by order dated 16.06.2022. Simultaneously,
some of the Directors filed W.P. No.11671 of 2022 before this Court
challenging the classification of the Company’s account as “Fraud”.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the second respondent
issued a Standard Operating Procedure governing the classification of
borrowers’ accounts as “Fraud” and resolved to withdraw the earlier
decision classifying the Company’s account as “Fraud”. Consequently,
10/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
the second respondent filed a Memo dated 04.10.2023 before this
Court in W.P. No.11671 of 2022. Recording the said Memo, this
Court allowed the writ petition.
12. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that no
offence is made out against the petitioners. According to him, the very
foundation for the registration of the FIR was the classification of the
Company’s account as “Fraud” based on the Forensic Audit Report.
Once the second respondent itself withdrew the said classification, the
very basis for the FIR ceased to exist. Therefore, no offence survives
against A5, A7 and A8.
13. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that there was
no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of
the transaction so as to attract the offence under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioners never made any fraudulent
representation to the second respondent for the purpose of availing
the credit facilities. He would further submit that there are absolutely
no allegations attracting the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471
11/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
of the Indian Penal Code, as there is no allegation that the petitioners
forged any document, made any false document or knowingly used
any forged document as genuine. He also contends that the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act are applicable only to public
servants and, therefore, the offences alleged under the said Act are not
attracted against the petitioners.
14. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that, thereafter,
show cause notices were issued to the petitioners in compliance with
the principles of natural justice. On receipt of the same, the petitioners
submitted their explanations. Thereafter, in the meeting of the Fraud
Identification Committee held on 11.06.2024, A5 and A7 were
exonerated from all the allegations on the ground that they were
Independent Directors of the Company. Insofar as A8 is concerned, he
was also exonerated on the ground that he had served as a Director
only from 04.12.2006 to 28.08.2015 and that all the allegations
pertain to the period subsequent to his resignation from the
Directorship. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
when the FIR itself came to be registered solely on the basis of the
12/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
Forensic Audit Report and the subsequent proceedings before the
Fraud Identification Committee have exonerated A5, A7 and A8 from
all the allegations, the continuation of the criminal proceedings
against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence,
the FIR, insofar as it relates to A5, A7 and A8, is liable to be quashed.
15. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of
India and Others / Vs/ Rajesh Agarwal and Others reported in 2023
6 SCC 1. The relevant of the Judgment is extracted here under:
98. The conclusion are summarised below:
98.1. No opportunity of being heard is required
before an FIR is lodged and registered.
98.2 Classification of an account as fraud not only
results in reporting the crime to the investigating
agencies, but also has other penal and civil consequences
against the borrowers.
98.3 Debarring the borrowers from accessing
institutional finance under Clause 8.12.1 of the Master
Directions of Frauds results in serious civil consequences
for the borrower.
13/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
98.4 Such a debarment under Clause 8.12.1 of the
Master Directions on Frauds is akin to blacklisting the
borrowers for being untrustworthy and unworthy of
credit by banks. This Court has consistently held that an
opportunity of hearing ought to be provided before a
person is blacklisted.
98.5 The application of audi alteram partem cannot
be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on
Frauds. In view of the time-frame contemplated under
the Master Directions on Frauds as well as the nature of
the procedure adopted, it is reasonably practicable for the
lender banks to provide opportunity of a hearing to the
borrowers before classifying their account as fraud.
98.6 The principles of natural justice demand that the
borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity
to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report,
and be allowed to represent by the banks/JLF before their
account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions
on Frauds. In addition, the decision classifying the
borrower’s account as fraudulent must be made by a
reasoned order.
14/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
98.7 Since the Master Directions on Frauds do no
expressly provide an opportunity of hearing to the
borrowers before classifying their account as fraud, audi
alteram partem has to be read into the provisions of the
directions to save them from the vice of arbitrariness.”
16. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshshyam
Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581,
in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which reads under:
38. The ratio which can be culled out from these
decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not
necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
15/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
(iv) The finding against the person facing
prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not
binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of
law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure:
vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will
depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in
adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not
on merit, prosecution may continue; and
vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where
the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and
the person held innocent, be allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in
criminal cases.
16/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
17. A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents,
as well as the submissions made on their behalf, reveals that Accused
Nos.5 and 6 had earlier filed petitions before this Court in Crl.O.P.
Nos.7968 and 8626 of 2021 seeking to quash the FIR registered in
Crime No. RCBD1/2021/E/0002 dated 24.03.2021 on the file of the
first respondent. This Court, by a common order dated 16.06.2022,
dismissed the said quash petitions. The said order was subsequently
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambedkar
Rajkumar Ganta v. Central Bureau of Investigation by order dated
19.09.2022 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.6391 of 2022.
18. This Court has dismissed the quash petition in Crl.OP.No.
8626 of 2021 with the following observations:
“30. This case is only in the stage of investigation. The
involvement of bank officials/public servant will be
known only during the course of investigation.
Admittedly, the petitioners are Directors the first
accused company. Whether they are independent
directors with a limited/no responsibility and whether
17/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
they had any role in the commission of offences wouldbe known only during the course of investigation. It is
too early to seek for quashing the FIR, on the ground
that they have nothing to do with the first accused
company after the initiation of proceedings before NCLT.
31. In the light of the allegations made in the
complaint, the role of the company and directors has to
be necessarily investigated. FIR is not an encyclopedia, it
only sets the law in motion. Only during the
investigation, the role of each and every accused qua
the allegations made against them would be known.
Whether the complaint allegations are true, whether it
disclosed the full details regarding the manner of
occurrence, whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the allegations are all matters, which are too
early to be considered at this stage It is observed in
Vinodh Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora and Others
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 581, which reads as follows:-
“ 30. It is a settled legal proposition that while
considering the case for quashing of the criminal
proceedings the court should not “ kill a stillborn
child”and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled
18/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Aninvestigation should not be shut out at the threshold if
the allegations have some substance. When a
prosecution of the initial stage is to be quashed, the test
tobe applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At
this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry,
whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence nor should the court judge the
probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations
made therein. More so, the charge sheet filed or charges
framed can be added at the subsequent stage, after the
evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section
216 Cr.P.C.”
32. Thus, this Court finds that there are no merits in the
claim of the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in
FIR No.RCBD1/2021/E/0002 dated 24.03.2021 on the
file of the Central Bureau of Investigation, BSFB. In this
view of the matter, both the petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. The first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation and file final as early as possible.
19/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
19. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
20. It appears that the very same petitioners, along with the
other Directors, have once again filed the present petitions seeking to
quash the FIR registered in Crime No. RCBD1/2021/E/0002 on the
file of the first respondent. The principal grounds urged are that the
classification of the Company’s account as “Fraud” was subsequently
revoked and that, in the subsequent proceedings before the Fraud
Identification Committee, A5, A7 and A8 were exonerated from the
allegations on the ground that A5 and A7 were Independent Directors
and A8 had resigned from the Directorship even prior to the period
during which the alleged acts of fraud were committed.
21. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgment deals
with the classification of a borrower’s account as “Fraud” by the
lending institutions. The classification of an account as “Fraud” and
the commission of criminal offences by the borrowers involving
20/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
public funds operate in different fields. The declaration of an account
as “Fraud” was set aside only on the ground of violation of the
principles of natural justice. However, no prior opportunity of hearing
is required before the registration of an FIR. While the classification
of an account as “Fraud” entails civil consequences, the registration of
an FIR gives rise to criminal consequences.
22. A perusal of the FIR discloses specific allegations attracting
the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is alleged that the accused fabricated and falsified records
and utilized such fabricated documents for availing term loans and
working capital facilities to the tune of Rs.493.72crores and
Rs.316crores respectively.
23. Though A5, A7 and A8 were exonerated from the
proceedings relating to the classification of the Company’s account as
“Fraud”, they were not exonerated from the criminal allegations
levelled against them. The FIR was not registered solely on the basis
of the Forensic Audit Report but also on the basis of several other
21/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
allegations indicating the commission of cognizable offences. It is
specifically alleged that the accused, acting in concert, committed
economic offences involving public money by falsifying and
fabricating books of accounts, accounting entries, vouchers and
financial statements.
24. It is further alleged that they opened a current account with
another bank outside the consortium without the knowledge,
information or permission of the second respondent. They also failed
to route the sale proceeds through the Trust and Retention Account
and allegedly diverted a sum of Rs.472.79crores received from
TANGEDCO through the Canara Bank account. Out of the said
amount, only a sum of Rs.62.43crores was subsequently transferred
towards the Trust and Retention Account, while a sum of
Rs.233.86crores was shown as having been utilized towards
operational expenses.
25. It is further alleged that, out of the loan repayments, a sum
of Rs.108.05crores was repaid towards loans and another sum of
22/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
Rs.69.45crores was transferred to related parties through transactions
which, according to the prosecution, were sham transactions intended
to cheat the second respondent.
26. Apart from the classification of the Company’s account as
“Fraud”, the FIR contains several other specific allegations. It is
alleged that coal worth Rs.94.56crores, which constituted the primary
security for the second respondent and the other consortium banks,
was falsely shown as unfit for use. The said coal had been procured
during the financial year 2016-2017. It is further alleged that the
accused fraudulently removed the pledged stock, thereby facilitating
the diversion of loan funds. The prosecution also alleges that coal
worth Rs.196.15crores and Rs.194.19crores was purchased during the
financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 respectively; however, the
corresponding documents, namely, Goods Receipt Notes, Stock
Registers, Testing Reports, Physical Verification Reports, the
procedure adopted by the Company for inward and outward
movement of coal and Coal Consumption Reports, were not produced
by the accused. These allegations, prima facie, disclose the
23/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
commission of cognizable offences under the relevant provisions of
the Indian Penal Code.
27. It is further alleged that the accused dishonestly and
fraudulently furnished false, forged and fabricated data relating to
coal stock to the Stock Auditor with the intention of inducing the
consortium banks to disburse credit facilities to the fullest extent,
although the Company was otherwise not entitled to such facilities. It
is also alleged that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and
submitted inflated stock statements to the second respondent Bank
with the intention of inducing the consortium of banks to sanction and
continue the credit facilities.
28. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence,
which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an
encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed
in its threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie
commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot
24/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to
step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with
the procedures prescribed in the Code.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the
judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal
Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.,
(Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned
Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to
apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the
offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning
the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate
the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint,
because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out
whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case
where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for
consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been
taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it
25/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done
before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction
or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and
consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement
made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there
would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance
of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by
entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the
accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on
the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil
nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused
are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding
shall not be interdicted.
30. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in
the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra &
ors., as follows :-
26/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
“23. ………………..
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
…………..
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the
court should not go into the merits of the allegations
in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
………….
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
27/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out
a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR; …….”
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not
inclined to quash the First Information Report. That apart, Accused
Nos.5 and 6 had earlier approached this Court seeking to quash the
very same FIR, and the said petitions were dismissed by this Court.
The said order was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No. RCBD1/2021/E/0002 and file the final
report, if not already filed, before the jurisdictional Magistrate within
a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
28/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
32. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand
dismissed, since the order dismissing the earlier quash petition has
already been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated
19.09.2022 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.6391 of 2022. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Vv
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Banking Securities Fraud Branch,
New Delhi-110003
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
29/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718, 28722, 28725, 28726 of 2023 and 751 of 2024
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
Pre-delivery Order
made in
Crl.O.P.Nos.27727, 27736, 28718,28722,
28725 and 28726 of 2023
and 751 of 2024
08.07.2026
30/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
