BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7716 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5375 of 2024

1. Nagammai

2. Subu @ Subramanian

3. Hari @ Subramanian ... Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Alagappapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.10/2024) ... Respondent / Complainant

2. Karthick Raja ... Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the First Respondent Police and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : M/s.A.S.Rajeswari

ORDER

Preface:

The present Criminal Original Petition is a classic illustration of a dispute arising out of a commercial construction contract, which has subsequently been given the colour of a criminal prosecution. The petitioners seek the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the criminal process, contending that the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclose at best a civil dispute and do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, as borne out from the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2024, is that on 09.06.2023, the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant entered into a written agreement for the construction of a dwelling house, containing stipulated terms and conditions.

3. It is alleged that pursuant to the said agreement, the defacto complainant paid a total sum of Rs.23,38,520/- through online transactions on various dates. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioners thereafter demanded an additional 10% amount, and upon refusal to pay the same, the construction work was stalled.

4. It is further alleged that upon verifying with other construction companies, the defacto complainant was informed that he had been cheated to the extent of Rs.4,85,043/-, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Case of the petitioners and grounds for quash:

5. The petitioners contend that nearly 90% of the construction work was completed strictly in accordance with the agreement and that the remaining portion could not be completed only due to the financial constraints of the defacto complainant.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the agreement itself contained a clause to the effect that price escalation beyond 10% due to material fluctuation would have to be borne by the defacto complainant, which he initially agreed to but later resiled from.

7. It is further submitted that even prior to the registration of the present FIR, the second petitioner had lodged a complaint on 26.12.2023, which was registered as C.S.R.No.369 of 2023, and that both parties exchanged legal notices dated 25.01.2024 and

31.01.2024.

8. The petitioners would further point out that they had also approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, by filing a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, in Crl.M.P.No.2140 of 2024, seeking appropriate relief, and that the present FIR was registered behind their back, with a clear intention to evade contractual liability and pressurise them.

9. According to the petitioners, the entire dispute is purely contractual in nature, and the registration of the FIR is nothing but an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, which warrants interference by this Court.

Submissions:

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are conspicuously absent in the complaint. It was contended that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the contract and that the dispute, if any, pertains only to alleged breach of contractual obligatio