Sathish Kumar.D v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.22811 of 2025 Sathish Kumar D ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Tiruvallur.

Crime No.68 of 2022.

2.

G.Premsekar ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to call for the records of the impugned FIR No.68 of 2022 dated 24.11.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.D.Sivakumaran For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.68 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

1/5

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 approached the Equitas Small Finance Bank, Villivakkam Branch and applied for a Business Development (Commercial) loan. After verification of the documents and originals submitted by the applicants, and upon field inspection and valuation allegedly carried out by A4 and A5 (the petitioner herein), the loan was sanctioned on 16.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The petitioner herein who was the panel valuer in the Bank has colluded and conspired with the accused persons by providing false valuation certificate to the building which is not available in the said land. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a panel valuer and the said loan was sanctioned under the "Business Loan - Property Mortgage Scheme" based on the security of an immovable property which is said to be owned by A1 and the said certificate was produced by A1. He would further submit that the petitioner has given valuation certificate for around 7,000 loans and since it was during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was extremely difficult to identify the rural properties.

2/5

4.Mr.S.Santhosh, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) who is appearing for the first respondent Police would submit that it is a case where the bank customer had availed the loan in collusion with the Manager and the petitioner is said to have facilitated sanction of loan by producing fabricated document. He would further submit that though A1 claimed that there was a building in the property, there was no building whereas, the valuer has given a certificate that there was a building in the property. He would further submit that the investigation is almost over and final report will be filed. He would also submit that there are prima facie materials as against the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.In view of the submissions made on either side, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings in Crime No.68 of 2022. However, this Court directs the first respondent Police to file the final report within a period of two months from today (ie., 02.12.2025). 3/5

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 02.12.2025 ssa To 1.

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Tiruvallur.

2.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

ssa and Crl.M.P.No.22811 of 2025 02.12.2025 5/5