Nitin Arora v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and CRL.M.P.No.488 of 2026 1.Nitin Arora S/o.Anil Kumar Arora, Director, M/s.MEO International Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Flot No.28A, SFS Flats, Sector-7, Pocket-1, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
2.Simran Arora @ Simran Bhatia W/o.Nitin Arora, Director, M/s.MEO International Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Flot No.28A, SFS Flats, Sector-7, Pocket-1, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Through Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City, Tamil Nadu - 641 601.
(Crime No.14 of 2024) 2.Saravana Kumar S/o.K.R.Annamalai, Executive Director, M/s.Kaiser Knitting Company, 23, Erukkadu Extn, 1st Street, Karuvam Palayam, Tiruppur - 641 604.
Respondents 1/14
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records in F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.1/Complainant and quash the aforementioned F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 2024 for alleged offences under Sections 407 and 420 I.P.C. For Petitioners :
Mr.Gokul for M/s.R & P Partners For Respondent-1:
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.Harshana, T.
For Respondent-2 :
Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.14 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.
2.(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that the second respondent/de facto complainant, Executive Director of Kaiser Knitting Company lodged a complaint on 17.09.2024 against the petitioners. The complaint is that the de facto complainant's company is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of knitted garments to USA and Europe. During, June 2023, the de facto complainant approached a buying agency M/s.Nova Fashion, Velampalayam, 2/14
Tiruppur owned by Mr.Karthik for export orders, who gave an order of 57600 set pieces of kids garments from M/s.Pink N Blue INC of New York, USA worth about USD 164,160 (Approximately Rs.1.36 Crores). The agreed payment term for the order is through bank issued Letter of Credit (LC) at Sight and for shipment of goods. The de facto complainant came to know that M/s.Nova Fashion has nominated a forwarder in India to ship the goods on Free On Board (FOB) terms by M/s.MEO International Logistics run by the petitioners. All communications regarding the order was done through Mr.Karthik of M/s.Nova Fashion directly with the buyer M/s.Pink N Blue INC. The finished goods from de facto complainant company shipped to USA through M/s.MEO International Logistics, who issued original Bill of Lading (BL).
The de facto complainant's bank sent the same to the buyer's bank opened LC. The buyer has to make the payment to his bank for the invoice of shipped goods and collect the original BL from his bank and hand over the BL to his forwarder M/s.Innovative International to release the goods. (ii) The de facto complainant's bank, namely, State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Tiruppur approached buyer's bank Israel Discount Bank of New York for release of LC amount.
for LCs. When the de facto complainant tracked the status of the goods, it was found that goods were released from the port without original documents and without making any payments. When the de facto complainant contacted the shipper M/s.Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC Liner), it was informed that M/s.MEO International has requested the MSC Liner to issue Seaway Bill of Lading for the goods shipped and removed the consignment without making any payment. A complaint was raised with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) and came to know that a Seaway Bill of Lading issued instead of Master Bill of Lading favouring the buyer Pink N Blue INC without making the payment and without collecting the original documents from his bank. On coming to know that M/s.MEO International Logistics are very much aware that there was no payment to the goods as per the terms in LC at Sight, they arranged and issued 3 original Bill of Lading with fraudulent intention to gain personal benefits by sending Seaway Bill of Lading from ship liner and hence lodged a complaint for misappropriation.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners' company M/s.MEO International Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. is a mere facilitator/forwarder from India for shipment of goods having no direct and indirect involvement in the alleged purported acts of crime. The petitioners being the Directors of M/s.MEO International Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. have 4/14
been malafidely targeted to settle the personal enmity arising out of private contractual/business relationship between the exporter and importer. The implication of the second petitioner, the wife of first petitioner would clearly indicate the pressure mounting tactics for recovery of claim made by the de facto complainant. The second petitioner is no way involved in day-to-day affairs of the company and not participated in any of the business. Just as a pressure mounting tactics, she has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, in the absence of arraying the company as accused, the Directors cannot be arrayed as accused without any specific overt act against them. It is only a civil dispute for non payment for exported goods by buyer M/s.Pink N Blue of New York. The petitioners' company was engaged by an US forwarder M/s.
Innovative International and petitioners are not directly responsible. Further in the absence of US forwarder, no case is made out against the petitioners. The second respondent/de facto complainant already initiated multiple civil cases regarding the civil claim not only in India but also in USA for the same commercial dispute. It is to be seen that petitioners are not made as a party in the civil cases initiated at New York. This case was filed to coerce the petitioners to succumb to the wrongful demand of second respondent and the complaint is motivated, pressurising the petitioners to yield to the illegal demand made by the de facto complainant. Be that as it may.
petitioners agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards the full and final settlement to all claims arising out of the above transaction with the second respondent. As per the terms of settlement deed, a sum of Rs.25 lakhs already paid by way of Demand Draft No.864407 dated 16.02.2026 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi and the balance amount of Rs.25 lakhs would be handed over before this Court. In pursuance to the same, today the petitioners handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.864430 dated 27.02.2026 for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the second respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur and a case in Crime No.14 of 2024 registered on 17.09.
2024 for offence under Sections 407 and 420 of I.P.C. The petitioners as Freight forwarders in the name of M/s.MEO International Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., shipped the goods/garments to the value of Rs.1.36 Crores. By way of Letter of Credit at Sight based on the Bill of Lading, Seaway Bill to be submitted to the corresponding bank at New York and thereafter goods to be released to the buyer M/s.Pink N Blue. Contrary to the same, the petitioners requested MSC Liner to issue Seaway Bill of Lading for the goods shipped and using the Seaway Bill, the goods were collected and the Letter of Credit not honoured and returned back. Hence, the petitioners committed misappropriation and cheating. In this case, now investigation is in progress.
5.The de facto complainant appeared in person. He admitted that though the claim with the petitioner's logistics company in India was for Rs.1.36 Crores, it was agreed to settle the issue for Rs.50 lakhs, despite sustaining loss, for the reason that blocking of such huge amount and non payment of LC to the bank has caused the de facto complainant to suffer huge loss and his entire financial cycle chocked and blocked. Further, they were unable to do any business and bank is also likely to initiate recovery proceedings and also to blacklist them. Hence very survival of them becomes questionable. Hence agreed for settlement.
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that petitioners and the de facto complainant had a commercial transaction. Instead of submitting the Bill of Lading, which has to be acquired at sight, goods which were exported by the de facto complainant handled by the petitioners as logistics personnel. Contrary to the agreement, they obtained shipping bill from Liner despite knowing that the goods were already covered by LC and the goods were taken by the buyer in America and amount not paid. Now understanding has been arrived between both the petitioners and the de facto complainant and de facto complainant appeared before this Court and filed a compromise affidavit and the settlement deed/Memorandum of Compromise to that effect. The terms of Settlement Deed dated 19.02.2026 reads as follows: 7/14
8/14
9/14
10/14
11/14
7.As per the settlement deed, it was resolved to settle the issue for Rs.50 lakhs, out of which, Rs.25 lakhs paid by the petitioners to the de facto complainant by way of Demand Draft No.864407 dated 16.02.2026 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi favouring de facto complainant/second respondent and today the petitioners handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.864430 dated 27.02.2026 for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, which is extracted hereunder:
12/14
8. As the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioners.
9. In view of the above understanding, the First Information Report in Crime No.14 of 2024, pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The petitioners are discharged of all the charges.
10. The affidavit and the Settlement deed filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27-03-2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rsi 13/14
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City, Tamil Nadu - 641 601.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
and CRL.M.P.No.488 of 2026 27.03.2026 14/14