IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C .No.2011 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.18971 of 2025 R.Suresh Kumar Rajasekaran S/o.V.T.V.Rajasekaran No.9, Kamaraj Nagar First Street, Sathya Garden, Saligramam, Chennai - 600 093. ...Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW – II, Chennai. ...Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS Act, 2023 to set aside the order dated 08.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.591 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court, TNPID Act Cases, Chennai, pending trial.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Revision challenges the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as A9 in C.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Chennai.

2.The prosecution case is that the financial establishments, which are arrayed as A1 and A2, had collected huge deposits from the general public to the tune of Rs.55 Crores; that they failed to return the deposits; and thus committed the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Sections

120 B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.The respondents filed the final report against the financial establishments, the persons in the management of the financial establishments and the persons responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishments. The final report was taken on file in C.C.No.7 of 2020.

4.The petitioner filed discharge petition before the trial Court on the ground that he was an Independent Director of the financial establishments for a short period; that he did not take part in the affairs of the financial establishments; that unless the prosecution has collected materials to show that the petitioner was involved in the affairs of the financial establishments, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against him; that the petitioner was prosecuted by the Law Enforcing Agency in Maharashtra for a similar offence committed by the very same financial establishments in Maharashtra; that the petitioner was discharged by the said Court on the ground that the petitioner was only a Non Executive Independent Director of the financial establishments and therefore, could not be held liable for any of the offences committed by the financial establishments.

5.The respondent opposed the prayer for discharge and submitted that the question of whether the petitioner was involved in the management of the affairs of the financial establishments can be adjudicated only during trial; that the fact that the petitioner was a director of the financial establishments is not in dispute; that the financial establishments had collected money from the general public to the tune of Rs.55 crores; and that the default could not have happened without the knowledge of the petitioner.

6.The learned Judge after considering the rival submissions had observed that the petitioner though was a Non-Executive Independent Director of the Company, he had participated in Board Meetings; that therefore, he cannot claim that he had no knowledge of the collection of deposits or the default committed by the financial establishments; that the respondents have made out a prima facie case; and that grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge and dismissed the petitioner's application.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that form 32 produced by the petitioner, which is not in dispute, would show that the petitioner was appointed as the Additional Director of the financial establishments in the year 2013; that thereafter, his designation was changed to Independent Director and he resigned in the year 2015; that the fact that the petitioner was an Independent Director is not in dispute; that the petitioner was not involved in the affairs of the company; that he could never be made respon