Prabhakaran v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and CRL MP NO.15026 OF 2025

1. PRABHAKARAN

2. Chenthil Perumal.R

3. Arun

4. Satheesh Rathinam

5. Rajaguru Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State rep by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Beta-1, EDF-1, Vepery, Chennai-7. Crime No. 82 of 2.Raghu M/s. Cumbum Valley Winery Pvt. Ltd.

1/5

New No.46, Old No. 109, Parsn Paradise, C-Block, 1st Floor, D.No.3, G.N.chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is field under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No. 82 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,Beta-1, EDF-1, Vepery, Chennai-7 and to quash the same against the petitioners.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. P.Balamurugan For R1 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No. 82 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Beta-1, EDF-1, Vepery, Chennai-7 and to quash the same against the petitioners.

2/5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint made by the defacto complainant/the second respondent herein, the first respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.82 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 420, 506(i) and 120B of the IPC.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the entire complaint do not constitute any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned F.I.R.

5. On a perusal of the F.I.R, the allegation made in the F.I.R is that the accused received a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on a false representation that they are very close to the higher Government Officials and they are able to obtain licence from the competent authority to operate a quarry mine. Thereafter, they neither obtained any licence nor repaid the amount. On the basis of the said allegation, F.I.R came to be filed. Therefore, whether there is deception from the inception is a matter of investigation. It can be seen only after completion 3/5

of investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in the F.I.R and this Court does not find any merit in the criminal original petition.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-10-2025 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Beta-1, EDF-1, Vepery, Chennai-7. Crime No. 82 of

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

mfa and CRL MP NO.15026 OF 2025 17-10-2025 5/5