Vikraman v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Viruveedu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1255 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.1306 of 2026 Vikraman

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No.95 of 2025 2.Chinnaraja ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with Crime No.95 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District, subsequently, quash the same as devoid of merits and illegal forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/6

ORDER

Seeking to quash the first information report in Crime No.95 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, this criminal original petition is filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the first accused in the aforesaid crime. The petitioner is a stranger, who is not at all connected with the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have approached the second respondent /defacto complainant and instigated him to avail a financial assistance to a tune of Rs.30,00,000/- from the Canara Bank, wherein the second accused is employed as Manager. Further, in this regard, he has obtained a commission of Rs.40,000/-. However, the second accused had given him a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-only. In this regard, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint, for which, FIR in Crime No. 95 of 2025 came to be registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the said 2/6

misappropriation of money from the second respondent. He further submitted that out of total amount of Rs.40,000/-, he had never ever received any money from the defacto complainant and sought the indulgence of this Court.

3.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has acted as a broker of the second accused, who was the Manager of the Canara Bank. Though the petitioner claimed that he had only received a fum of Rs.40,000/-, a total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- has been received from the defacto complainant and the same has been received in the account of the petitioner, which will clearly prove the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence and sought for dismissal of this petition.

4.Heard the submission on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

3/6

5.A careful reading of the FIR itself would reveal that having promised to obtain a loan of Rs.30,00,000/-, only Rs.5,00,000/- has been sanctioned in the name of the second respondent, for which, an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been transferred to the first accused on 29.07.2023 by the defacto complainant through mobile. On receipt of Rs.40,000/-, the petitioner had also ensured the de facto complainant that the remaining loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- would be credited to his account within 20 days. However, even after lapse of 20 days, the said amount was not credited in the account of the defecto complainant. Pursuant to the same, he had lodged a complaint. Prima facie case is clearly made out as against the petitioner and hence, I do not find any necessity to quash the FIR at the stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 23.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Rmk Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1255 of 2026 23.01.2026 6/6