Madras High Court
Shri Shaikh Mahaboob vs The State Rep By Central Bureau Of … on 10 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 22.06.2026
Pronounced on: 10.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025 and
Crl.MP.Nos.24617, 24618, 24623, 24625, 24629, 24630,
24637 & 24638 of 2025
Crl.OP.No.35063 of 2025
1.Shaikh Mahaboob
2.M/s.Chemstar International Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. By its Managing Director Shaik Mahaboob,
Rukshan Apartments,
Old No.4, New No.7, Siva Sankar Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell,
Bangalore
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Finance Branch,
No.139, 1st Floor, Broadway,
Chennai 600 108
(R2 suo motu impleaded as per order of this
Court dated 19.12.2025 in Crl.OP.Nos.35063,
35064 & 35065 and 35066 of 2025) ... Respondents
Prayer:
Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings in
CC.No.2005 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai arising out of FIR
No.RC21/2018 and quash the said proceedings in their entirety as against
the petitioners herein(Accused No.5 and Accused No.7)
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Elambharathi
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2 : Mr.A.V.Arun
Crl.OP.No.35064 of 2025
Shaikh SK Chan Basha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell,
Bangalore
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Finance Branch,
No.139, 1st Floor, Broadway,
Chennai 600 108
(R2 suo motu impleaded as per order of this
Court dated 19.12.2025 in Crl.OP.Nos.35063,
35064 & 35065 and 35066 of 2025) ... Respondents
Prayer:
Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings in
CC.No.2005 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai arising out of FIR
No.RC21(E)/2018 and quash the said proceedings in their entirety as
against the petitioner herein(Accused No.4)
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar,
for Mr.M.Vijayamehanath
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2 : Mr.A.V.Arun
Crl.OP.No.35065 of 2025
Shaikh Abdul Aziz ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell,
Bangalore
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Finance Branch,
No.139, 1st Floor, Broadway,
Chennai 600 108
(R2 suo motu impleaded as per order of this
Court dated 19.12.2025 in Crl.OP.Nos.35063,
35064 & 35065 and 35066 of 2025) ... Respondents
Prayer:
Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings in
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
CC.No.2005 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai arising out of FIR
No.RC21(E)/2018 and quash the said proceedings in their entirety as
against the petitioner herein(Accused No.3)
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2 : Mr.A.V.Arun
Crl.OP.No.35066 of 2025
1.Shaik Abdul Jaleel
2.M/s.Star Aqua International Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
Shaik Abdul Jaleel,
No.24, B-Block, Ground Floor, 47, Landon Road,
Landon Towers, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell,
Bangalore
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Finance Branch,
No.139, 1st Floor, Broadway,
Chennai 600 108
(R2 suo motu impleaded as per order of this
Court dated 19.12.2025 in Crl.OP.Nos.35063,
35064 & 35065 and 35066 of 2025) ... Respondents
Prayer:
Page 4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings in
CC.No.2005 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai arising out of FIR
No.RC21/2018 and quash the said proceedings in their entirety as against
the petitioners herein(Accused No.2 & 6)
For Petitioners : Mr.Abdul Saleem,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Vijayamehanath
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2 : Mr.A.V.Arun
COMMON ORDER
These criminal original petitions have been filed praying to quash
the proceedings in CC.No.2005 of 2025 on the file of the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
arising out of FIR No.RC21/2018.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the
company i.e.M/s.Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt.Ltd. and the second
accused is the Managing Director of the first accused. The third accused
is the Director of the first accused. The fourth accused is the Managing
Partner of M/s.SK Chan Basha & Co. A5 is the partner of M/s.JK
Page 5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
Fisheries and Managing Director of M/s.Chem Star International
Pvt.Ltd.. A6 is a company represented by its Managing Director/A2. A7
is also a company represented by A5 as its Managing Director. They
conspired together during the period 2012-2018 to cheat the complainant
bank, fraudulently availed various credit facilities by making false
representations and also by submitting fabricated, falsified and grossly
inflated financial statements and stock and receivables statements and
false sales and purchase invoices. Further, they deliberately diverted the
loan funds for purposes other than those for which the facilities were
sanctioned thereby causing a wrongful loss to the complainant to the tune
of Rs.284.84 crores and a corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
The first respondent registered FIR on the complaint lodged by the
second respondent in RC21/2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 420 of IPC and other substantive offences
thereof. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the
same was taken cognizance by the trial court in CC.No.2005 of 2025 on
the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai and it is pending for trial. While pending trial, the
accused have filed these petitions to quash the entire proceedings on
various grounds.
Page 6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
3. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit
that the allegations did not prima facie disclose any offence as alleged by
the prosecution. It is a complete commercial transaction and civil dispute.
In order to give criminal colour to the civil dispute, with malafide
intention, complaint was lodged. Even according to the complainant, the
first accused was classified as non performing asset on 31.03.2016 due to
severe marketing issue and loss of stock due to unprecedented and
unexpected floods in the year of 2015 in Nellore. Therefore, the accused
could not repay the loan amount. However, the matter was converted into
criminal offence. Immediately after classifying the first accused company
as non performing asset, the complainant initiated Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process before National Company Law Tribunal. Thereafter,
Resolution Plan was submitted by M/s.Seelam Infra Developers Private
Limited and the same was approved by the defacto complainant. After
approval of the Resolution Plan, the defacto complainant had also issued
No Due Certificate on 16.03.2020 stating that there are no dues payable
by the corporate debtor. Therefore, the entire issue was settled and dues
were paid. Hence, initiation of criminal case is nothing but abuse of
process of law. Further, in order to attract the offence under Section 420
of IPC, there must be a dishonest intention to cheat at the very inception
of the transaction. Even according to the defacto complainant, there had
Page 7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
been business transactions between the accused and the defacto
complainant for more than 20 years i.e. from the year 1998. During the
transaction, the accused had repaid over hundreds of crores to the defacto
complainant. The default solely occurred due to the flood and global
market failure. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not at
all made out against the accused. Further, under Section 32A of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the corporate debtor ceased to be liable
for any offence prior to the commencement of Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process. Therefore, the defacto complainant is estopped from
pursuing criminal prosecution.
3.1 The learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted
that breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and it
does only in those cases where there was deception at the very inception.
If the intention to cheat developed later on, then the same cannot amount
to cheating. Further, the allegations regarding breach of trust and forgery
are essentially civil disputes regarding loan repayment and stock
valuation. There is absolutely no proof or evidence regarding commission
of the alleged offences.
Page 8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
4. On perusal of the counters and objections filed by the
respondents and also on the submissions of the learned counsels for the
respondents, it is revealed that, the crux of the allegations is that all the
accused conspired together in order to cheat the defacto complainant,
fraudulently availed various credit facilities by making false
representations and also by submitting fabricated, falsified and grossly
inflated financial statement. They also produced inflated stock and
receivables statements with false sales and purchase invoices. Believing
those documents, the defacto complainant sanctioned financial credit
facilities to the accused. Thereafter, the accused failed to repay the said
amount thereby causing wrongful loss to the defacto complainant to the
tune of Rs.284.84 crores and correspondingly wrongful gain to
themselves. Admittedly, the accused availed various financial credit
facilities from the defacto complainant from the year 1998. From the year
2016, the accused committed default in repayment of loan due to loss of
stock due to unprecedented floods in the year of 2015 in Nellore and also
due to sudden market crisis and price fluctuation in their business.
Thereafter, the account of the first accused became non performing asset
and the defacto complainant banker proceeded against the accused to
recover the loan amount which was availed by the accused by various
credit facilities. Thereafter, the first accused had given a proposal for
Page 9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
restructuring the account. Thereafter, the defacto complainant initiated
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before National Company Law
Tribunal, Chennai in CP.No.668 of 2017. Thereafter, a resolution plan
was submitted by M/s.Seelam Infra Developers Limited and the same
was duly approved by the Committee of Creditors on 01.10.2018 with
100% voting share. The defacto complainant constituted 95.35% of vote
share and expressly approved the plan. Thereafter, National Company
Law Tribunal, Chennai by order dated 11.03.2019 in MA.No.520 of 2018
approved the resolution plan as contemplated under Section 31 of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In fact, the Committee of Creditors
voted in favour of the resolution plan to settle the accounts of the
accused. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged complaint. In fact,
after approval of the resolution plan, the defacto complainant also issued
No Due Certificate dated 16.03.2020 to the accused stating and
confirming that there are no dues payable by the corporate debtor. It
shows that the entire issue was already settled since all the dues were
settled. But the specific stand of the defacto complainant is that though
No Due Certificate was issued in the resolution plan, it was issued
without prejudice to the rights to proceed against the guarantors and the
mortgagors for recovering the outstanding balance. Admittedly, the
defacto complainant had received the share of Rs.45.86 crores and issued
Page 10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
no due certificate. That apart, the defacto complainant also proceeded
against the guarantors and mortgagors before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal-I, Chennai in TA.No.76 of 2022 and obtained recovery
certificate in DRC.No.3 of 2025 for the recovery of Rs.628.15 crores as
on 27.02.2025.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor(CBI) vehemently
contended that though it is a commercial transaction, the accused
committed serious default in repaying the loan amount and cheated the
public fund to the tune of Rs.284.84 crores. Therefore, though the defacto
complainant initiated proceedings against the guarantors and mortgagors,
there is no bar to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the
accused. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Crl.A.No.661 of 2009 in the
case of Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal dated 08.04.2009, wherein
it was held that civil proceedings and criminal prosecution can proceed
simultaneously and that the existence of civil remedies does not bar
criminal action where the ingredients of the criminal offences are made
out. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India rendered in the case of CBI Vs. Maninder Singh reported in (2016)
1 SCC 389, wherein it is held that in economic offences, Court must keep
Page 11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
in view that it is not only the money of the bank which has been
defrauded but it is also the money of the society at large. It is not a case
of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which
we are concerned is well-planned and was committed with a deliberate
design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the
society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the
accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced
sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not
allowed to continue, the entire community will be aggrieved.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor(CBI) further placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case CBI v. Sarvodaya Highways Ltd., arising out of Criminal Appeal
(SLP) No.11108 of 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reiterated the settled legal position that economic offences, particularly
those involving bank fraud and diversion of public funds, constitute
serious crimes not only against bank but also against society. Further, it
was held as follows:
“25. There are plethora plethora of judgments of this
court, which categorically holds that in cases involving
economic offences, it is not merely the Bank that stands
defrauded, but the society at large is also impacted.
Page 12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
26. It can be said without a shadow of doubt that the
one-time settlement would not fetch the entire amount to
which the Bank was otherwise entitled. One-time settlements
are, as a rule, effected under circumstances where the Bank
under duress is compelled to accept lesser amount in order to
secure the maximum possible recovery against the defaulting
account.”
7. However, the above judgments are not applicable to the case
on hand for the simple reason that admittedly it is a commercial
transaction between the accused and the defacto complainant. The
accused availed various credit facilities from the defacto complainant
from the year 1998. Till 2016, they repaid the loan amount to the tune of
hundreds of crores and only from the year 2016, they committed default
in payment of loan amount. It is well settled that in order to bring home
the charge for the offence under Section 420 of IPC:
(i)the accused must have fraudulently or dishonestly
made some false compromise.
(ii)the defacto complainant must have acted on the
strength of such false representation or compromise.
8. In the case on hand, the petitioners neither made any dishonest
nor any fraudulent representation. Therefore, the offence under Section
420 of IPC is not at all made out as against the petitioners.
Page 13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
9. Further, though the first respondent filed final report for the
offences under Section 120(b) r/w 420 & 420 of IPC, the trial court while
taking cognizance stated that since no evidence related to the forgery was
found, therefore the prosecution itself did not invoke charges under
Section 468 and 471 of IPC. Thus it is clear that the settled position of
law is that every breach of contract would not give rise to offence of
cheating and it is only in those cases where there was deception at the
very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same
cannot amount to cheating. Therefore, the complainant is required to
show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
making promise or representation. In the case on hand, admittedly the
accused had banking transaction with the defacto complainant from the
year 1998. Further, they had repaid more than hundreds of crores of
rupees after availing several credit facilities. Only from the year 2016,
they committed default in repayment of the loan amount due to various
reasons. That apart, now the entire dues have been paid to the banker and
they were also issued no due certificate. That apart, they also initiated
proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and obtained
recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.628.15 crores. Therefore, there is
nothing to show that at the time of very inception, there was an intention
on the part of the accused to cheat the defacto complainant bank which is
Page 14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
a condition precedent to attract the offences under Section 420 of IPC.
Further, after invoking Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before National
Company Law Tribunal, the defacto complainant ought not to have
initiated criminal proceedings against the accused. After accepting the
proposal and approval and after issuance of No Due Certificate stating
that there are no dues payable by the corporate debtor, the initiation of
criminal proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law. Further,
the defacto complainant is also estopped from pursuing the criminal
proceedings after they voted for accepting Resolution Plan on 01.10.2018
and accepted the settlement amount under Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process.
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings
is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire impugned proceedings is
quashed and all the criminal original petitions stand allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
Page 15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,
Chennai
2.Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell,
Bangalore
3.The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Finance Branch,
No.139, 1st Floor, Broadway,
Chennai 600 108
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Crl.O.P.Nos.35063 to 35066 of 2025
10.07.2026
Page 16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
