Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.DHANABAL, J
Rajunarayanan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by: The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai. – Respondent
CRL OP.(MD) No.21347 of 2024|Crl. M.P. (MD) No.5645 of 2025|C.C. No.744 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz
For the Respondents: Mr. Vaikkam Karunanithi, Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Mr. A. Karthik
Insufficient prima facie evidence to support charges of misappropriation; prosecution failed to obtain necessary documents to validate claims.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 - Allegations of misappropriation and funds transfer from the defacto complainant's account to the accused's accounts, leading to properties purchased using misappropriated funds. Court found no prima facie evidence produced by prosecution to substantiate the allegations, such as bank statements from the defacto complainant to establish money transfers - Complaints lodged were deemed malicious and without proper investigation - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. (Paras 1-29)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The court emphasized the lack of prima facie material required to sustain the charges against the accused. (Paras 3.2, 25, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of misappropriating funds amounting to Rs. 3,50,00,000/- while employed by a company at Singapore. The prosecution failed to gather essential documentation, such as the complainant's bank statements, to support the claims of misappropriation.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the prosecution's claims lacked foundational evidence, and allegations were unfounded and malicious.
Issues: The primary issues focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the charge of misappropriation against the accused and the adequacy of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proper investigation and documentation are crucial for establishing a prima facie case, which was not met in this instance.
Result: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and proceedings in C.C. No. 744 of 2022 were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of legal proceedings due to lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of misappropriation by a1 and a2. (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution's burden of proof and material failure. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. necessity of evidence to support charges. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. requirements for offences under ipc. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. no forged documents produced to support charges. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. guidelines for quashing fir and charges. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. failure to conduct fair investigation impacts proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. legal proceedings quashed based on findings. (Para 28 , 29) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.744 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was doing construction work at Singapore by taking sub contracts of metro train work orders and used to take the workmen from India to Singapore and was running a company in the name and style of M/s.LCM Civil Engineering (S) PTE Ltd., as the Director of the said company. While so, in the year 2007, the 1st accused approached the brother of the defacto complainant for a job at Singapore and he was also appointed as an ‘Accountant System Manager’. Thereafter, the 1st accused got married with the 2nd accused and they resided at Singapore and the cheque signing power was given to A1. The 1st accused was drawing a salary of 2000 Dollars per month. The 2nd respondent further started three companies under the name and style of M/s.SRS Pretecia, SRS Civil Engineering (S) PTE Ltd., and SRS Construction @ Engineering (S) Ltd., and used to do construction work. While so, in the month of July 2017, when the defacto complainant audited the accounts, came to know that the 1st accused himself has approved the cheques and misappropriated the funds and transferred the funds of the defacto complainant’s company to the account of A1 in A/c. No.30913321797 in the State Bank of India, Eriyur Branch, Sivagangai District and also transferred the funds to the ICICI Bank, Eraiyur Branch in Account No. 6061011075005 and Axis Bank at Chennai in Account No. 91001007911439. Further, transferred the amount to his wife/2nd accused’s State Bank of India, Eraiyur Branch Account No. 32778520085, to A3 and A4’s Indian bank, Nachiyarpuram Branch Account No.959370021 and to A5 and A6’s State Bank of India, Eriyur Branch Account No.30299557896 and to the account of his brother Velmurugan totally to the tune of Rs.3,50,00,000/-. Using the above said amounts, all the accused had purchased properties in their names and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the accused escaped from Singapore and settled at India.
2.1. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Singapore police on 17.06.2017, but no action was taken, since the accused left from Singapore. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know that when the 1st accused was in India, through online, A1 transferred funds from the defacto complainant’s account to the accounts of 1 and 2 accused as shown below:
Alleged transaction from the defacto complainant’s account to A1’s account at State Bank of India, Eriyur Branch, Sivagangai
| Sl. No. | Date of alleged transaction | Alleged amount transferred (Rs.) |
| 1. | 11.04.2016 | 2,36,919/- |
| 2. | 11.04.2016 | 45,000/- |
| 3. | 11.04.2016 | 6,33,000/- |
| 4. | 11.04.2016 | 8,00,000/- |
| 5. | 11.04.2016 | 1,00,000/- |
Alleged transaction from the defacto complainant’s account to A2’s account at State Bank of India, Karaikudi Branch, Sivagangai
| Sl. No. | Date of alleged transaction | Alleged amount transferred (Rs._ |
| 1. | 03.06.2014 | 4,00,000/- |
| 2. | 21.12.2015 | 2,75,000/- |
| 3. | 11.02.2016 | 5,00,000/- |
| 4. | 11.04.2016 | 31,28,000/- |
| 5. | 12.04.2016 | 1,75,000/- |
Using the above said misappropriated amounts, the accused purchased the properties. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint as against the accused before the 1st respondent police. Thereby, the 1st respondent Police registered a ca
