Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 852

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
G.V. Adhimoolam and Others - Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police and Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10754 of 2022], Criminal Appeal No. 1798 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10691 of 2022]
Decided On : 04-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.

The court found no cognizable offense in the allegations, emphasizing that accusations of fraud require proven inducement, which was absent, resulting in the quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 342, 294(b), 506(1) - Quashing of FIR - High Court rejected petition for quashing complaint relating to investment in a car dealership. Court found ex facie no cognizable offence made; allegations lack essential ingredients for fraud and criminal intimidation. Delay of six years in filing the FIR raised doubts over the complaint's bona fides. The court emphasized the necessity of inducement in fraud cases, which was missing in this instance. Appeals allowed, FIR and proceedings quashed. (Paras 3, 23, 31, 34)

Table of Content
1. overview of facts and complaints. (Para 3 , 4 , 13)
2. concern over investment fraud & family relations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
3. defense asserts civil dispute wrongfully criminalized. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. arguments for quashing from the appellants. (Para 19)
5. court's rationale for quashing fir based on evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32)
6. legal standards for quashing fir under inherent powers. (Para 29)
7. court's observations on allegations and legal grounds. (Para 30 , 31)
8. conclusion quashing allegations as frivolous. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants in these two appeals are aggrieved by the common order dated 27th September, 2022, whereby, the Criminal Original Petition¹ [Crl. O.P. No. 14850 of 2019] filed by the appellants² [Hereinafter referred to as ‘accused-appellants’] herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³ [Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] seeking quashing of the complaint/FIR in Crime No. 21 dated 4th June, 2019, registered with the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch⁴ [Hereinafter being referred to as ‘DCB’] Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu, stands rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.⁵ [Hereinafter being referred to as the “High Court”]

4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted herein-below.

5. Respondent No. 2-complainant, namely M. Senthil Kumar⁶ [For short ‘complainant’] and R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5) are real brothers. The appellant, Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3), is the daughter of R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5). The appellant-Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) is the husband of Sharmila Devi, appellant-G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) is her father-in-law and appellant-R. Jagadeeswaran (accused No. 4) is her real brother. The complainant’s brother, R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5), passed away after lodging of the complaint.

6. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, DCB on 4th June, 2019, alleging inter alia that he was involved in business of textile yarn. His elder brother, R.M. Rajamanikam (since deceased), used to reside near his house. R. Jagadeeswaran (accused No. 4) and Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) are his nephew and niece respectively. Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) married Vijayaraj (accused No. 2), son of G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1). R.M. Rajamanikam, the elder brother of the complainant advised him to diversify into some other business by joining with his daughter’s in-laws.

7. R.M. Rajamanikam met the complainant and apprised him that G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1), Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) and Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) were initiating a Nissan car dealership and were ready to join the complainant as a partner in the business. The complainant was given an allurement that he would earn several crores of rupees by joining the business. The complainant trusted the suggestion given by R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5) and accordingly, he transferred a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- way back in the year 2013 from the bank account of Varshini Traders in State Bank of Patiala, being run by him along with his father-in-law, to the bank account of the firm Sri Vakkira Kalliamman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. being run by R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5). As per the complainant, his elder brother transferred the said amount on the very same day to the account of G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1).

8. Fifteen days later, he was invited to Pallipalayam. Accordingly, he went to the house of G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) and was asked to pay an additional sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards his share in the business. The complainant offered the said amount to G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) in cash which was received by Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) in the presence of Vijayaraj (accused No. 2). The accused-appellants launched the Nissan car showroom and were operating the same reg