Perumal @ Ayyamperumal v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.3652 of 2026 Perumal @ Ayyamperumal, S/o.Subramanian, 13/1, Agraharam 3rd Street, Keelapavoor, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District - 627 806.

Now residing at 58, Jalan Ang Seng, Brickfield, 50470, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep By Its, The Inspector of Police, CBCID North Police Station, Villupuram District.

Cr.No.2 of 2025

2. Sekar S/o.Sundreswaran, No.584, Dharmapuri Vazhuthavur, Puducherry.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Mutucharan Sundaresh for S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) For R1 Order This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned. 2.The second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent, based on which the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The petitioner who was running a Trust named "Glory of Praises" at Manapparai, Trichy, induced the second respondent by falsely claiming that he had received Rs.

18,000 crores from a foreign country through the RBI and that the said amount would be distributed among the Trust members. The petitioner allegedly produced fabricated RBI documents, RBI ID card and photographs to gain the confidence of the second respondent. Believing the representations, the second respondent joined the Trust and, over a period of 13 years, introduced about 70 members. The second respondent allegedly paid Rs.50 lakhs in cash and Rs.

Gnanaprakasam, the first accused. The members introduced by Sekar collectively invested about Rs.8 crores, making the total investment approximately Rs.8.61 crores. It is further alleged that the accused used to take the victims to the RBI office in Mumbai, leave them outside, and falsely claim that he was processing the funds. When the second respondent demanded the return of the money, on 10.12.2023, he visited Manapparai and found Gnanaprakasam absent. He then took Gnanaprakasam's son Ebinazer, to Puducherry, which led to the registration of a kidnapping case at Manapparai Police Station, in which the second respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, pursuant to a compromise, the said case was quashed. Based on the present complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.2/2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Villupuram District.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint had already been registered in Crime No.1 of 2025 before the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Karur for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. For the very same set of allegations, another complaint has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 5 of Emblems and

Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. It is submitted that the present FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram, arises out of the very same transaction alleged in Crime No.1 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Karur. Therefore, the registration of the present FIR is not sustainable, as it does not disclose any fresh or independent offence against the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent filed counter affidavit and he submitted that A1 Gnanaprakasam, cheated the second respondent and others by falsely claiming that he had sold Iridium to a German Company and would receive Rs.18,000 Crores, which he would be distributed among the Trust members.

He induced the second respondent and other to invest money, by promising a return of Rs.1 crore for every Rs.1 lakh invested. From 2019 onwards, the second respondent paid Rs.58,00,000/- to A1 both in cash and through digital transactions. At the instance of A1, the second respondent introduced 70 members, of whom 24 members invested about Rs.1 crore in the scheme. He further submitted that A1 Gnanaprakasam, used to take the victims to the Reserve Bank of India offices in Mumbai and Bengaluru, leave them outside, and enter the premises along with the petitioner/accused. A1 conducted meetings at various hotels in Puducherry and Kollimalai to collect money from the victims, and the petitioner/accused actively participated in such meetings.

impersonators posing as RBI and bank officials to deceive the victims. He further printed fake RBI bonds used in the commission of the offence and shared the proceeds of the crime. There is ample evidence linking the petitioner to the offence, including victim statements and bank transaction records. Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Karur and Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram are distinct, though they involve the same accused. The period of occurrence, case history and victims differ in both cases. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape liability by claiming both cases are identical. Sufficient materials are available on record to substantiate the charges against the petitioner/accused.

Investigation is still in progress, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth further facts and identify other accused involved. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.On perusal of the FIR registered in Crime No.2 of 2025, it is revealed that the first accused cheated the defacto complainant by falsely claiming that he had sold Iridium to a German Company and would receive Rs.18,000 Crores, which would be distributed among the Trust members. On such false representations, he induced the defacto complainant and other to deposit money by assuring them that they would be inducted as Trustees. It is further seen that the allegations in Crime No.

No.1 of 2025. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to conduct the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2025 and complete the same, within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of the investigation, if the first respondent finds that the victims have lodged multiple complaints based on the very same set of allegations and the same modus operandi adopted by the accused, including the FIRs in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Karur and Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram respectively, the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai, shall club all such the FIRs' together and file a single final report (charge sheet) before the competent Court for prosecution in accordance with law.

7.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH

To 1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID North Police Station, Villupuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Karur.

3.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

AH 22-06-2026 2/2