IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 08-01-2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 19-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 1974 of 2025 and Crl.MP.No.18701 of 2025 M/s.ICMC Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Mr.M.Kannan, Having Office at No.36, Ambathur Industrial Estate, Chennai-38. ... Petitioner Vs

1.M.Sivakumar ... 1^st respondent/petitioner/A6

2.The State Rep by, The Sub Inspector of Police, EDF-III, Team XXIA, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. ... 2^nd respondent/Investigating officer Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.08.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.37731 of 2024 in C.C.No.6662 of 2022, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai and CBCID Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.T.Perumal For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Suresh Babu (for R1)

Mr.P.Vinoth Raja (for R2) Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the defacto complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai and CBCID Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.37731 of 2024, discharging the sixth accused/1^st respondent herein in C.C.No.6662 of 2022.

2. The gist of the allegation in the final report filed against the 1^st respondent/A6 and others is that the first accused in this case represented to the petitioner/defacto complainant that he is the DGM of a company by the name 'ITI Limited'; that they were authorised suppliers of COVID-19 materials, viz., face shield, face mask, Nitrile gloves to Government Hospitals; that pursuant to the said representation, the petitioner/defacto complainant agreed to enter into a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 01.02.2021 for Rs.11,24,20,000/-; that the petitioner/defacto complainant obtained loan; that at the instance of the first accused, the petitioner/defacto complainant had initially transferred Rs.5 Crores to M/s.Connoiseur Electronics Private Limited and since they did not supply the said materials, the said amount was returned to the petitioner/defacto complainant; that thereafter at the instance of the first accused, the petitioner/defacto complainant has transferred various monies to the accounts of the other accused viz., A2 to A5; and that during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the other accused have transferred certain money to the 1^st respondent/sixth accused and hence, he is also guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1^st respondent/sixth accused sought for discharge before the learned Magistrate in Crl.MP.No.37331 of 2024 on the ground that the case of the prosecution that A2 had transferred Rs.75 Lakhs and that A5 had transferred Rs.5 Lakhs to him, has nothing to do with the alleged cheating said to have been committed by A1 against the petitioner/defacto complainant; that he had already transferred Rs.52 Lakhs to A5 and therefore, he ought to be discharged.

4. The State/2^nd respondent filed a counter to the said discharge petition stating that since the petitioner/defacto complainant had lost a sum of Rs.3.20 Crores; that a portion of the said amount was transferred by A2 and A5 to the 1^st respondent/sixth accused; and that he is part of the conspiracy and therefore, cannot be discharged.

5. The learned Magistrate held that it is the specific case of the petitioner/defacto complainant that the alleged acts of cheating took place between 01.12.2021 and 22.02.2021 by A1 to A5; that the amounts transferred by A2 and A5 to the 1^st respondent/sixth accused were much prior to the alleged act of cheating i.e., between 01.12.2020 and 21.12.2020; that the petitioner/defacto complainant has not made any allegation against the 1^st respondent/sixth accused, either in the FIR or in the statement made to the police;