Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1362
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Stalinbabu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Thanjavur – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.7548, 7549, 7559, 7562 and 7564 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5589, 5591 to 5595 and 5597 to 5600 of 2025
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Dhilipan Pandian.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthikumar, Government Adv. (Crl.Side), Mr. K.R. Laxman.
Criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC will not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. solely because there is parallel civil litigation or prior decrees, as the court cannot conduct a mini-trial to determine the factual existence of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.
Headnote:The proceedings arise under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash criminal charges pending under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) involving the alleged pledging of spurious jewels as genuine to obtain loans. The petitioners contended that the dispute was civil in nature, supported by existing civil court decrees, and alleged that the criminal prosecution was a malicious counterblast to business disputes. The core issue is whether the inherent power of the High Court should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding where the allegations, if true, establish the elements of cheating, despite the existence of parallel civil litigation. The Court holds that the existence of a civil remedy does not extinguish criminal liability, and that the determination of dishonest intention and the genuineness of the pledged articles are factual disputes that must be subjected to the rigors of a full trial rather than being decided in summary proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the result, the court dismissed the petitions and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
ORDER :
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Prologue:
These Criminal Original Petitions are taken up together, since they arise out of a common factual matrix, involve substantially identical allegations, raise common grounds for quashment and require consideration of the same legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners in the respective cases are arrayed as sole accused in the calendar cases pending on the file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Thanjavur, namely C.C.Nos.62 of 2011, 63 of 2011, 64 of 2011, 65 of 2011 and 66 of 2011.
3. The final reports in all these cases have been filed for the offence under Section 420 IPC on the allegation that the petitioners pledged spurious jewels with the complainant institution and, representing them to be genuine gold jewels, dishonestly induced the institution to part with money, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant institution and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
Case of the Prosecution:
4. The prosecution case, in substance, is that the petitioner had pledged jewels with the second respondent/de facto complainant institution and obtained monetary benefit therefrom. Subsequently, the complainant institution is said to have discovered that the jewels so pledged were not genuine, but spurious. According to the prosecution, the accused persons, by presenting such jewels as genuine ornaments, induced the complainant institution to advance money.
5. On the basis of the complaints lodged by the de facto complainant, the first respondent police registered cases, investigated the matter and filed final reports for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the same and the calendar cases are now pending trial.
Grounds for Quash:
6. The principal grounds urged by the petitioners are as follows:
i. The dispute is essentially civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour.
ii. The petitioners had already approached the competent Civil Court and obtained decrees in their favour.
iii. The criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted as a counterblast to civil proceedings and business disputes.
iv. The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC, particularly dishonest intention at the inception, are not made out.
v. The proceedings fall within the seventh category enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 being allegedly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive.
vi. Reliance is placed on Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 13 SCC 369 and Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 to contend that this Court can look into the surrounding circumstances to find out whether the proceedings are vexatious or malicious.
Arguments on Either Side:
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution is a colourable exercise of criminal law. According to him, the transactions between the parties arose out of pledging of jewels and money dealings, and if at all any dispute exists, the same is civil in nature.
8. It was further submitted that the petitioners had already obtained civil decrees and therefore the continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to permitting the complainant to misuse the criminal process to defeat the benefit of such civil decrees.
9. The learned counsel also contended that mere non-payment, dispute regarding quality of pledged articles, or subsequent discovery of alleged defect in the jewels would not automatically constitute cheating unless the prosecution establishes dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction.
10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the allegations in the final reports clearly disclose that the petitioners pledged spurious jewels as genuine jewels and obtained money from the complainant institution. Such an act, according to the prosecution, cannot be brushed aside as a mere civil dis
