BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.18917 & 18918 of 2025 K.A.Mahaboob Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu through, The Inspector of POlice, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.45 of 2012)

2.Seenivasan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records connected with the case in CC No.2696 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in CC No.2696 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner is the fourth accused in this case. The first accused was working as the gold appraiser in the Indian Overseas Bank, Melapalayam Branch, Tirunelveli District and the defacto complainant was the Senior Regional Manager of the said bank.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2012, while LW7 along with LW8 inspected the pledged gold in the Bank, it was found that the first accused allegedly issued certificate for fake gold jewels to the tune of 29.180 grams as pledged by the petitioner herein on 11.02.2012 to the value of Rs. 50,000/-, and based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, an FIR in Crime No.45 of 2012 came to be registered on 04.04.2012 for the offences under Section 409, 420 and 120(B) of IPC and the same culminated in laying the charge sheet in CC No.2696 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that immediately upon registration of the case, the first accused had repaid the entire amount that had been transferred to the account concerned, which amount was allegedly obtained pursuant to the pledging of spurious jewellery.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was residing opposite the concerned bank and had visited the said bank on 16.03.2012. At that point of time, the first accused is said to have requested the petitioner’s passbook for perusal. Believing him, the petitioner handed over his passbook and passport to the first accused and thereafter received the same back. Other than that, he had no nothing to do with the offence and sought for indulgence of this Court by quashing the final report.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner and the second accused had colluded with the first accused, who was working as a gold appraiser in the concerned bank. It is contended that the first accused adopted a modus operandi of pledging spurious jewellery as genuine gold, fabricating records relating to the gold loan transactions, and causing the loan amount equivalent to the mortgage value to be transferred to bank accounts arranged for the said purpose.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police further submitted that, in the present case, the loan amount was not transferred to the bank accounts of the first accused, the second accused, or the petitioner herein. Instead, the accused persons are said to have withdrawn the loan amount directly from the bank by utilising the withdrawal slip facility and thereafter misappropriated the same.

8. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the first accused had given a confession statement admitting that he had colluded with the petitioner herein and others, pledged spurious gold ornaments as genuine, and misappropriated the loan amount obtained thereon. The learn