SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Ashok Sachdev – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.RC.No.1600 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Maninder Singh, M.A.Vimal Mohan
For the Respondents: C.E.Pratap, T.Gowthaman, M.Guruprasad

An investigation into an FIR alleging serious financial fraud cannot be closed summarily as a 'civil dispute' without the Investigating Officer conducting a thorough inquiry into documented evidence of fund siphoning, money laundering, and misappropriation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3), 397 and 401 - Protest petition - Closure report - Duty of Investigating Officer (IO) - Held, when serious allegations of financial fraud, siphoning of public and investor funds via shell companies are raised, the IO is obligated to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation; merely relying on civil disputes between parties to close a criminal investigation is perverse. (Paras 22, 23, 24)

(B) Financial Crimes - Misappropriation - Criminal breach of trust - Investigating agency’s failure to probe foreign fund transfers or verify bank accounts despite prima facie document submissions warrants a direction for further investigation. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner invested in a real estate project under a Memorandum of Understanding. Alleging that funds were siphoned off to foreign shell companies and that the project was never completed, the petitioner filed a complaint. After an FIR was registered, the police filed a closure report stating the dispute was civil in nature. The Magistrate accepted the closure report, leading to the current revision.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the investigation was biased, incomplete, and failed to address specific allegations of siphoning funds. The Trial Court’s reliance on the civil nature of the dispute was deemed perverse without examining the criminal allegations.

Issues: Whether the IO conducted a fair investigation into allegations of fund diversion and fraud, and whether the Trial Court was correct in accepting the final closure report.

Ratio Decidendi: An Investigating Officer is duty-bound to investigate all materials provided by the complainant regarding allegations of criminal fraud; a closure report cannot be filed merely by characterizing a dispute as civil when serious allegations of misappropriation and siphoning of public/investor funds exist.

Result: Revision allowed; further investigation directed.

Table of Content
1. background and initiation of criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's grievances regarding biased and incomplete police investigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondents' arguments emphasizing civil nature and prior adjudication. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's duty to ensure fair investigation of fraud cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying (a) to set aside the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned CCB and CBCID Special Court, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, in Crl.M.P.No. 560 of 2022, in FIR No.253/2019, under Section 406,420, r/w 120 (B) of IPC.

b) pass an order directing proper, fair, neutral and unbiased further investigation in the FIR.No.253 registered at PS CCB-I, Chennai CCB U/s 420,406,120(B)IPC by a Police Officer not below the rank of DCP.

c) Monitor the investigation and direct the investigating officer to complete the investigation qua the accused persons and companies named in the FIR No. 253/2019 [namely P.K.Ramesh, S.Ravindranathan, Maria Ramesh, Call Express Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Praveen Kumar Ramesh and Callex Australia Pvt.Ltd] in a time bound manner and submit the report before this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate

for Mr.M.A.Vimal Mohan

For R1 : Dr.C.E.Pratap,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R2 : Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel

for Mr.M.Guruprasad

O R D E R

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge in Crl.M.P.No.560 of 2022 in CNR.No.TNCHOF-000827-2022 in CCB.Cr.No.253 of 2019, the defacto complainant has preferred this revision against the respondent police as well as the proposed accused / R2.

2. The brief facts of the case as follows: The petitioner being aggrieved by the various offences allegedly committed by P.K.Ramesh, S.Ravindranathan, Maria Ramesh, Call Express Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Praveen Kumar Ramesh, and Callex Australia Pty. Ltd., including cheating, criminal breach of trust, fraud, forgery, misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and siphoning of monies abroad through the creation of shell companies, filed a complaint dated 16.05.2019 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. However, the concerned police officials failed to take any action on the petitioner’s complaint. No investigation was conducted into the allegations made by the petitioner, nor was any FIR registered. Consequently, being aggrieved by the inaction of the police officers / investigating agency and their apparent attempt to shield the aforementioned accused persons. The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.4634 of 2019 seeking registration of an FIR against one P.K. Ramesh, S.Ravindranathan, Maria Ramesh, Call Express Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Praveen Kumar Ramesh, Callex Australia Pty. Ltd, the proposed accused. Based on the said application, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB, Chennai, directed the respondent police to register the FIR against P.K. Ramesh and other Accused, under the relevant provisions of law, holding that cognizable offences were made out and therefore directing registration of the FIR for the purpose of investigation.

3. Pursuant to the said direction, FIR No.253 of 2019 dated 07.09.2019 was registered at PS CCB-I, Chennai, under Section 420 and 406 r/w 120(B) IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner also participated in the investigation and submitted various documents on different dates,18.09.2019, 20.11.2020, and 14.12.2020, substantiating his allegations regarding conspiracy, dishonest intention, and fraudulent misappropriation committed by P.K. Ramesh and the other accused. The petitioner believed that the Investigating Officer (IO) would conduct a fair and proper investigation based on the material documents he had produced. However, to his shock, he received a notice dated 16.12.2020 fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top