The court established that disputes involving financial transactions and fraud require comprehensive evidence before any dismissal of proceedings.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the order dated

04.04.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.1944 of 2024 by the Special Court Under TNPID Act, Coimbatore .

2. Challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3 Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had filed an application seeking to discharge himself from the proceedings on the ground that there was no prima facie case made out against him. He further contended that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, relating to a money transaction and a varthamana agreement. Therefore, he prayed to be discharged from the proceedings, stating that he had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4. Case of the Prosecution is that on 29.01.2016, the complainant P.Jayakumar has been visited the office of the Pranu Chits & Finance, at that time the manager of pranu chits and finance are present there and they were canvassed and delivered enticed words to give higher rate of interest, i.e., 3.025 paise per per Rs.100/- for the deposit amount. Believing their words of the accused the complainant have deposited the amount of Rs.19,50,000/- and the accused had issued signed agreement bond to the depositor for the deposit amount.

5. The prosecution raised objections stating that the petitioner is ranked as A1 in the case and that there are prima facie materials available in the charge sheet implicating him. It was further submitted that sufficient materials exist to proceed against the petitioner and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 506(i) of IPC and 5 of TNPID Act. 6. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the submissions of both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that as per Section 2(3) of the TNPID Act, an individual carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner would fall within the ambit of a financial establishment. To which, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said sum of Rs.19,50,000/- had been repaid and the cheques and the Varthamana agreement deeds had been received back from the defacto complainant and to the same, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that towards the said liability, the cheque involved in this case had been given by the petitioner. As such, the said rival contention needs to be tested in trial.

7. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that though the petitioner contended that he had repaid a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- and that the varthamana letter was returned by the defacto complainant, the same was specifically denied by the defacto complainant (R2), who alleged that the said document had been manipulated by the petitioner to defraud him. The prosecution also stated that incriminating materials were found against the petitioner. Hence, the petition was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

8. Notice was issued, and the defacto complainant also appeared before this Court.

9. On considering the submissions of both sides, it is seen that the petitioner contends to have repaid the entire disputed amount of Rs.19,50,000/- and asserts that the matter is civil in nature. It is also stated that a civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court. However, the defacto complainant (R2) appeared and submitted that the alleged varthamana letter and other agreements relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated and manipulated documents created for unlawful gain, and that no amount has been repaid till date. Therefore, the dispute relates both to the money transaction and the alleged chit business run by the petitioner.

10. Without any material evidenc