Aadharsh Jain v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Aadharsh Jain Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police District Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore. Crime No.1/2024.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order in C.M.P.No.6078/2025 in C.C.No.145/2025 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore pass an appropriate order.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.G.R.Deepak For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, Government Advocate(Criminal Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in C.M.P.No.6078 of 2025 in C.C.No.145 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant was lured by certain persons and was made to deposit money to the tune of Rs.5,72,050/- into the account of the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was found that a sum of Rs.2,53,54,365/- was credited to the account of the petitioner, and that he, in turn, transferred the said amount to various other accounts, thereby committing the alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even according to the prosecution, the petitioner had not deceived the de facto complainant and that the transactions were carried out through his account without his knowledge. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not wrongfully gained any amount and that, upon coming to know of the transactions, he himself lodged a complaint before the Cyber Crime Police regarding the remittances credited to his account and the subsequent transfers made without his knowledge. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have discharged the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the respondents have only filed a preliminary final report under Section 193 of the BNSS and that the

investigation is still pending in order to ascertain the involvement of other accused persons in the alleged offences.

5. Admittedly, the respondents have not yet filed the final report. The investigation is still in progress to ascertain the involvement of other persons in the alleged offences. It is also the case of the respondents that the amounts credited to the account of the petitioner were transferred to other accounts. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner was aware of the transactions made in his account. The issue as to whether the petitioner himself was lured or was a part of the conspiracy to commit the offences cannot be decided at this stage. However, since the respondents are yet to file the final report, this Court is of the view that liberty can be granted to the petitioner to file a discharge petition, if he is able to make out a case for discharge after the filing of the final report.

6. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

22-01-2026 skr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

SUNDER MOHAN J.

skr To

1. District Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 22-01-2026