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) 74854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
G.SATHISH DAS – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRL RC No. 2104 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.12. 2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRL RC No. 2104 of 2025

AND

CRL MP NO. 19606 OF 2025

1. G.Sathish Das

S/o.S.G.Sekar and 3 Others

2. G.Shanthi

W/o.S.G.Sekar

3. G.Santheep Das

W/o.S.G.Sekar

4. S.Faustina

W/o.Sathish Das, All are residing at

No.7, 2nd Cross Street, Sylvan Lodge

Colony, Kellys, Chennai-10.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of

Police,

EOW, Chennai. Cr.No.5/2017.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

To call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2581/2023 in C.C.No.4/2020, on the file of

The Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in

Financial Establishment), Act, 1997, Chennai-600 104 and set aside the order

dated 20.09.2025, by allowing this revision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:04 pm )

##PAGE2##

CRL RC No. 2104 of 2025

CRL RC No. 2104 of 2025

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R. John Sathyan, for

K.Balasubramaniam

R.Prabhakaran

R.Hemalatha

For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E. Pratap,

Government Advocate (Crl.

Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records in

Cr.M.P.No.2581/2023 in C.C.No.4/2020, on the file of The Special Judge under

the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial

Establishment), Act, 1997, Chennai-600 104 and set aside the order dated

20.09.2025, by allowing this revision.

2. The brief facts of the case:

One G.Sunila, wife of G. Santhosh Kumar lodged a complaint before the

respondent police stating that SGS Agro Forms Private Limited/A1, SGS Agro

Farms Limited/A2, Company and its directors/A3 to A11 have colluded with

each other canvassed General public by way of inducing them through

advertisements to make deposit money in A1 and A2 company by giving false

promises that A1 and A2 would repay their deposit money with higher profit or

land on its maturity. Believing their promises, the complainant went to the

accused company on 29.05.2010 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- per month

upto 29.08.2015 for a period of 63 months totalling into Rs.63,000/-. On the

same day of itself, the complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.63,000/- and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:04 pm )

##PAGE3##

CRL RC No. 2104 of 2025

further deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month in the name of her husband

upto 29.05.2010. Therefore, both of them totally deposited a sum of

Rs.1,26,000/-. After completion of the maturity period, the complaint went to

the accused's company and approached the accused to get back her money but

they did not repay her amount. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that

all the accused had cheated her amount and thereafter, the complainant had

lodged a complaint before the Economic Offences Wing – II, Chennai. Based

on her complaint, the case has been registered under Section 406, 420, 120(B)

IPC & Section 5 of TNPID Act in crime No. 5 of 2017. Upon completion of

investigation, the respondent police filed final report and taken cognizance in

C.C No. 4 of 2020, by the Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of

Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment), Act, 1997, Chennai-600

104. Thereafter, the petitioner herein along with other accused persons filed the

petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C to discharge them from the case stating that

they were directors in SGS Agro Farms Limited and thereafter on 26.03.2013

the said company was changed as SGS Agro Farms Private Limited and these

petitioners were not directors of A2 company/SGS Agro Farms Private Limited

only A10 and A11 were directors since those petitioners were resigned from A1

company on 27.02.2010 and the same reflected in Form 32 of the Company

Act. Therefore, on the date of the lodging the complaint these petitioners were

not directors and they have nothing to do with A1 company. Even though they

were not participated in the company affairs they were implicated in these case

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:04 pm )

##PAGE4##

CRL RC No. 2104

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