Madhavi Karumanchi v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.23828 of 2025 Madhavi Karumanchi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.520 of 2025, Chennai City.

2. Chandra Madhava

...Respondents

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.520 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same, by allowing this criminal original petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.A.Irfan Sherif for R2 1/6

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.520 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent for the offence under Section 318(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, as put forth by the de facto complainant, one Chandra Madhava, is that the accused, who were the husband (A1) and wife / petitioner herein (A2), induced the de facto complainant to invest in share market and, in the course of such inducement, received a sum of Rs. 38,41,529/- during the period from 24.09.2018 to 29.11.2023, thereby cheating the de facto complainant. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 and is the erstwhile wife of the first accused and their marriage having been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 06.10.2023. It is further submitted that due to difference of opinion 2/6

between them, they have been living separately and that the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in the present case.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the first respondent submits that the case of the prosecution is that the accused acted in concert and induced the de facto complainant to invest in share market, thereby cheating him to the tune of Rs.38,41,529/-. He further submits that though the petitioner claims that the divorce was granted on 06.10.2023, the transaction in question commenced as early as the year 2018 and that there are materials on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the said transactions. He further submits that the investigation is still pending and that, despite service of notice, the petitioner has not appeared for enquiry.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the transactions in question commenced in the year 2018 and that there are materials on record to show that the amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner, who in turn transferred the same to various other accounts. He further submits that the second respondent / de facto 3/6

complainant has been cheated to the tune of Rs.38,41,529/- and that the petitioner was aware of the transactions and, along with other main accused, induced and cheated the de facto complainant. He further submits that the investigation is at nascent stage and that, in view of the available documentary materials evidencing the transfer of amounts to the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be interfered with at the threshold.

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

7. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the transactions in question commenced as early as the year 2018 and that there are prima facie materials to show that the amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner, who in turn transferred the same to other accounts. The allegations disclose that the petitioner was aware of the transactions and acted in concert with the other accused in inducing and cheating the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.38,41,529/-. At this stage, when the investigation is still at nascent stage and documentary materials are available, this Court is not inclined to 4/6

interfere with the proceedings at the threshold, as the issues raised require a full fledged investigation.

8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 15.12.2025 rap Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To:

1. The Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.520 of 2025, Chennai City.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

rap rap rap 15.12.2025 6/6