Madras High Court
Parimala vs State Rep.By on 3 March, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.Nos.4002 & 4003 of 2023
Parimala
W/o. Raja, No.45/79, Panchaliyamman Kovil
Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Rep.By
Inspector Of Police, S4, Nandambakkam Police
Station, Chennai 600 089. Cr.No.203/2018.
2. Vedha Arun Nagarajan
S/o. Vedhachalam, C28, Idpl Residency,
Nandambakkam, Chennai 600089.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in P.R.C.No.62 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Alandur, and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondents(s): Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.62 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Alandur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC., as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant made
acquaintance of one Nandhini through his friend Palanivelu wherein the said
Nandhini introduced herself that she owns a restaurant namely Express Foods
as Nandambakkam. While so, the said Nandhini approached the defacto
complainant to lend money for the purpose of opening restaurants at
Vadapalani and Kodambakkam. Therefore, the defacto complainant had given
a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to Nandhini, her daughter Vaishali, her son Karan and
this petitioner for which, the said Nandhini issued title document and cheques
in favour of the defacto complainant. However, the cheques issued by the
petitioner and others were dishonoured and the defacto complainant also came
to know that the document issued by Nandhini was forged one. When the
defacto complainant asked for return of money, the accused persons threatened
the defacto complainant with dire consequences. It is further alleged that on
04.09.2018 around 12.00 pm., when the defacto complainant went to Apollo
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
Pharmachy near Manapakkam, the accused persons harassed the defacto
complainant and also tried to attack him with weapons. Hence, the defacto
complainant lodged complaint before the first respondent. On receipt of the
complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.203 of 2018 and
after completion of investigation, they filed final reported in P.R.C.No.62 of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307
and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioner filed
the present petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is arrayed as A4. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the
respondent filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b),
341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. The only allegation made as against the
petitioner is that she issued cheques in order to repay the loan amount in favour
of the second respondent. It got dishonored and as such, the second respondent
also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and it is pending for trial. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is
not at all made out as against the petitioner. That apart, it is only money
transaction between the accused and the second respondent and it cannot be
turned into criminal prosecution.
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
3.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in CDJ 2024 SC 228 in the case of
A.M.Mohan Vs. State Rep., by Sho & anr., which held that there is a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies
are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of
lenders/creditors. There is an impression that if a person could somehow be
entangles in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Further held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which
do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
3.2. He also relied upon an another judgment reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 726 in the case of Shailesh Kumar Sing alias Shailesh R Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be
something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the
accused was to cheat the complainant from from the inception. In the case on
hand, the petitioner had absolutely no intention to cheat the second respondent
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
and as such the charge under Section 420 of IPC is not at all attracted as against
the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
first respondent submitted that there are totally four accused and the petitioner
is arrayed as A4. She is none other than the mother of the first accused. All the
four accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the second respondent
and failed to repay the said amount. When it was questioned by the second
respondent, he was criminally intimidated and also threatened with dire
consequences. The accused persons also attempted to do away his life.
Therefore, the first respondent rightly completed the investigation and filed
charge sheet for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 341, 307 and
506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she also borrowed
huge money and in order to repay the said amount, she issued a cheque. It got
dishonored and as such, she is also facing the proceeding initiated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are specific allegations
as against the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed before this Court.
6. There are totally four accused in which, the petitioner is arrayed
as A4. According to the second respondent, he lent a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in
favour of the accused 1 to 4. Thereafter, they failed to repay the said amount.
In order to cheat the second respondent, all the accused had issued cheques
separately to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/-. However, all the cheques were
returned dishonored for the reason “insufficient funds”. Therefore, the second
respondent also initiated proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, as against the accused persons including the petitioner herein
and they are facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act also. Therefore, the petitioner after having full
knowledge that she had no money in her account, she issued cheque to the
second respondent in order to cheat him. Therefore, very inception of the
transaction, the petitioner had intention to cheat the second respondent and
issued cheque. It got bounced and she is also facing the proceeding in
C.C.No.146 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court, Alandur, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
7. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is clearly made
out as against the petitioner. Further the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the case on hand,
since the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC are
clearly made out. The ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420
of IPC are that a person cheated must be dishonestly induced to deliver
property to any person or make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything
signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Therefore, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence
under Section 420 of IPC.
8. Further, the statement of the second accused revealed that the
deception of the petitioner and fraudulently, dishonestly inducing him to
deliver money to the accused and dishonest intention of the accused at the time
of making inducement as such, the second respondent lent such a huge amount.
Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC., is clearly made out and this
Court finds no ground to quash the entire proceedings. However, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the
petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel after
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
filing appropriate application. The petitioner shall be present before the Court
below at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
03.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Alandur.
2. The Inspector Of Police,
S4, Nandambakkam Police Station,
Chennai 600 089.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Crl.O.P.No.6340 of 2023 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4002 & 4003 of 2023
03.03.2026
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 03:57:59 pm )
