Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 27543, 28469, 28466 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026
For the Appellants : A.E. Chelliah, R. Prathaban
For the Respondent: K. Srinivasan
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right; prolonged delays warrant quashing of charges if no loss is incurred by the state.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) - Accused in a corruption case sought to quash ongoing proceedings based on allegations of loan fraud with HUDCO and submission of false documents for loan acquisition. (Paras 3, 4, 18, 22)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The prolonged delay of over 20 years in trial infringed upon the petitioners' fundamental rights, creating an undue burden of mental agony and impairing their ability to defend themselves, thus warranting quashing of charges. (Paras 5, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of involvement in a conspiracy related to the fraudulent acquisition of loans from HUDCO for purchasing plots, allegedly using inflated sale agreements and forged salary certificates. The trial has seen many co-accused discharged over time. (Paras 1-2, 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners was unwarranted due to the extensive delay in the trial and the fact that HUDCO did not suffer any loss as the loans were fully repaid. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: Whether the charges against the petitioners can be sustained considering the long pendency of trial, absence of witness testimony against them, and the repayment of loans without any loss to HUDCO. (Paras 6, 12, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right, and given the significant delay, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed. (Paras 20-22)
Result: Criminal Original Petitions allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2006 quashed, the petitioners discharged from charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of criminal petitions and accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the prosecution case against the accused. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. submissions and arguments from the petitioners. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. counter arguments from the prosecution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. evidence and examination of loan procedures. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. discussion on the right to a speedy trial. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. conclusion and order quashing proceedings. (Para 22) |
ORDER :
1. Crl.O.P.No.27543 of 2025 is filed by B. Gandhi/A41, Crl.O.P.No.28469 of 2025 is filed by K. Lalitha/A37 and Crl.O.P.No.28466 of 2025 is filed by Gnanaoli/A46.
2. Petitioners herein are accused in C.C.No.11 of 2006 and the grounds raised by the petitioners are identical and the respondent is common in all petitions, thus disposed of by a common order.
3. The petitioners are accused who are facing trial in C.C.No.11 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 120 (b) r/w. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w. (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2024, information received by the respondent against one V.Arulkumar, Regional Chief, HUDCO, Chennai, S.Vijaylakshmi, Stenographer, HUDCO, Chennai, M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai and others. During investigation, the role of other accused, namely, Bhaherathi, Managing Director of M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd. G.R.Venkatesh, Director of M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd., P.M.Sankaran, Muralidharan and Subramanian and 43 loanees came to light, hence added as accused. In this case, Muralidharan and Subramanian taken as approvers. The HUDCO NIWAS Scheme envisaged in the year 2000 for sanction of loans to individuals for purchase of plots. Two important requirements for sanction of loan is that the developer should be reputed one and the loan sanctioned should not exceed 85% of the registered value of the plot including the registration charges. A1 was the competent authority to sanction the loan processed by the Retail Finance Unit. A2 as Stenographer is not empowered to receive the loan applications from the loanees and to process them. But A2 was entrusted with the work of receiving the loan applications by A1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, against HUDCO Circulars. A2 after receipt of the loan applications used to check the applications and instruct the loanees to make suitable corrections in the application in order to circumvent the rules and regulations of HUDCO knowing that the information directed to be filled up is not true. A2 used to do the legal appraisal though she is not competent to make remarks. The employment verification of the loanees was done knowing that no such verification was carried out and A2 pressurized the Senior Managers on behalf of A1 to process the loan applications. A3/M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd. developed a layout at Sri Krishna Nagar at No.157, Pondur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk and created inflated sale agreements with 43 loanees for availment of loan under HUDCO NIWAS, on forged income proof and false sale agreement and thereby loanees received excess loan amount from HUDCO. The approvers Muralidharan and Subramanian, Managers in HUDCO responsible for processing the applications submitted by the loanees for purchase of plots. On their recommendation, Regional Chief was sanctioning the loans. One P.M.Sankaran, Approved Valuer of HUDCO fraudulently and dishonestly given inflated valuation report dated 08.03.2002. thus 43 loanees purchased plots at Sri Krishna Nagar, Pondur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk fraudulently applied for plot loan from HUDCO by creating a false agreement with M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd. and by submitting false salary slips as income proof based on which, loans sanctioned. In pursuance of the conspiracy, M/s.Sindhu Developers Pvt. Ltd. represented by A4 and A5 approached the approvers, Muralidharan and Subramanian and A1 in this case during December 2001 and requested f
