Madras High CourtCRL RC/983/2026dismissed

Tn. Prakash v. The State Rep By Its,

2026-06-01Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.RC.Nos.983 & 984 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.7838 & 7844 of 2026 Crl.RC.No.983 of 2026 T.N.Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.

Crl.RC.No.984 of 2026 T.Balaji ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS praying to call for the entire records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.72911 of 2024 in CC.NO.4617 of 2023 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 10.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.72911 of 2024 in C.C.NO.4617 of 2023 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai For Petitioner : Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondent : Mr.B.Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases COMMON ORDER These criminal revision cases have been filed praying to quash the orders dated 10.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.72914 & 72911 of 2024 in CC.No.4617 of 2023 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petitions filed

under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioners. 2.

The petitioners are arrayed as A8 and A9 respectively. The first accused was engaged in trading of Iron and Steel products with Mr. P.S. Krishnamurthy (A-2) as the Managing Director and his wife Mrs. P.K. Vadivambal (A-3) as its Director. The Company was enjoying Fund Based Working Capital (FBWC) limit of Rs.24 Cr. and Non-Fund Based Working Capital (NFBWC) limit of Rs.30 Cr. under consortium arrangement with Oriental Bank of Commerce as the lead bank and Syndicate Bank as the consortium partner. In the year 2006, the Company approached State Bank of India with a proposal for SBI to take over the limits from OBC and Syndicate bank. In January 2007, SBI gave sanction to this proposal with limits of Rs. 40 Cr. (CC) and Rs.20 Cr. (LC) to M/s. P.S. Krishnamurthy Steels Pvt. Ltd. (A-1).

As a consortium partner, erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (e-SBM) also sanctioned credit limits to the Company to the extent of an FB limit of Rs. 20 Cr. and NFB limit of Rs. 20 Cr. In January 2008, SBI gave sanction for renewal of credit limits with enhancement of FBWC (Cash Credit) limits from Rs. 40 Cr. to Rs. 60 Cr. and NFBWC (Letter of Credit) limits from Rs. 20 Cr. to Rs. 30 Cr., taking the total exposure to Rs. 90 Cr. In March 2008, e-SBM had sanctioned FBWC limit of Rs. 30 Cr. and NFBWC limit of Rs.30 Cr.

the Company on the strength of the assessment done by State Bank of India Overseas Branch in this regard. Thereafter, in March, 2009, SBI had sanctioned the renewal of FBWC limits of Rs. 60 Cr. and NFBWC limits of Rs.30 Cr. at existing levels. Subsequently, in September 2009, SBI approved the renewal of FBWC limits with enhancement from Rs.60 Cr. to Rs.80 Cr. and renewal of NFBWC limits with enhancement from Rs.30 Cr. to Rs.64 Cr. Afterwards, in Feb 2011, SBI sanctioned the renewal of limits at the existing levels i.e. FBWC of Rs.80 Cr. and NFBWC of Rs.64 Cr. Then in Aug 2011, SBI again renewed the limits at existing levels. Again in February 2013, SBI had sanctioned the renewal of credit limits at existing levels and e-SBM had also renewed the credit limits at existing level i.e. FBWC limit of Rs. 40 Cr. and NFBWC limit of Rs. 56 Cr.

From the year 2009 onwards, SBI did not enhance the limits beyond Rs.144 Cr. (FB: 80 Cr. and NFB: 64 Cr.) and on a whole only two enhancements were provided to M/s. P.S. Krishnamurthy Steels Pvt. Ltd., one in 2008 from Rs.60 Cr. to Rs.90 Cr. and one in 2009 from Rs.90 Cr. to Rs.144 Crore. No further enhancement was given in the next three years. E-SBM gave CC limit of Rs.40 Cr. and LC limit of Rs.56 Cr. (Overall limits from the consortium CC-Rs. 120 Cr. and LC-Rs.120 Cr. Total Rs. 240 Cr.) Mr. P.S. Krishnamurthy (A-2), Mrs. P.K. Vadivambal (A-3) as representatives of M/s.

documents first at the time of availing the credit facilities in 2007 and subsequently they executed supplemental loan documents. 3.

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 4.

It is seen that A1 to A13 entered into criminal conspiracy during the period from 2007 to 2013 and availed credit facilities from the complainant by submitting fabricated documents such as invoices and delivery challans submitted as genuine documents to the bank and opened several letters of credit. As far as the petitioners /A8 & A9 are concerned, they availed such facilities by producing fake invoices and delivery challans as genuine documents. All the list of witnesses had categorically spoken about their role and as such, the respondent rightly filed final report charging A8 and A9 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420 of IPC. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are only name lenders and they have nothing to do with the first accused, and only on the instructions given by the second accused, they submitted all the documents to avail such facilities.

However, there are materials available to fix the petitioners as accused for the charges under Sections 120B r/w 420 of IPC. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only during the trial by letting in evidence. When there are specific materials very much available to frame charges, the petitioners are not entitled for discharge. Hence, the trial court rightly dismissed the petitions filed to discharge the petitioners from the aforementioned charges and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. 6.

In view of the above discussion, both the criminal revision cases are dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. However, the trial court shall complete the trial without influence of any of the observations made by this Court in these criminal revision cases. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 01.06.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

1. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai 2.State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 01.06.2026