Aadharsh Jain vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
Crl.MP.No.20001 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011592622026}
Aadharsh Jain, S/o Padam Chand Jain,
196, Nehru Ward, Near Galla Mandi,
Khurai, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police
District Cyber Crime II Police Station,
Coimbatore. Crime No.1 of 2024.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated,
26.02.2026, framing charges against the Revision Petitioner in CC.No.145 of
2025, by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.R.Deepak
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 26.02.2026,
framing charges against the Revision Petitioner, for the offences, under
Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act,
2000 in CC.No.145 of 2025, by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the defacto complainant was induced by
certain persons, through WhatsApp and Telegram Communications, to
__________
Page1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
participate in online tasks, on the promise of earning money and that
believing the representations made by the persons, communicating with him,
the defacto complainant had transferred amounts to the bank accounts
specified by them. Out of the amounts so transferred, a sum of Rs.5,28,000/-
was allegedly credited to the ICICI Bank Account, bearing
No.747105500088, linked with the mobile number, i.e. 9594522784, which
stands in the name of the Revision Petitioner.
3. During the course of the investigation, it was allegedly found that the
transactions, aggregating to Rs.2,53,54,365/- had taken place in the aforesaid
bank account of the Revision Petitioner on the incident dates, namely,
13.12.2023 and 14.12.2023 and that the amounts credited to the account had
been transferred through the net banking to various other bank accounts. The
Prosecution further had relied upon the particulars of the mobile number,
linked to the bank account and alleged that the transactions were carried out,
with the knowledge of the Revision Petitioner. Since the involvement of the
other persons allegedly connected with the transactions, was yet to be
ascertained, the Prosecution had submitted a preliminary charge sheet, dated
05.12.2024, invoking Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, before the Trial Court. The case was taken on file in
CC.No.145 of 2025, by the Trial Court.
4. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed a discharge petition, in
CMP.No.6078 of 2025, on 20.06.2025, before the Trial Court. By the order
__________
Page2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
of the Trial Court, dated, 28.08.2025, the said discharge petition was
dismissed on the ground that the case of the Revision Petitioner could be
decided, only after a full trial. As against the same, the Revision Petitioner
had filed Crl.RC.No.1661 of 2025, before this Court. This Court, while
dismissing the said Criminal Revision Case, by the order dated, 22.01.2026,
had granted liberty to the Revision Petitioner to file a discharge petition, if he
is able to make out a case for discharge, after filing of the final report.
5. While so, by the impugned order, dated 26.02.2026, in CC.No.145 of 2025,
the Trial Court had framed charges against the Revision Petitioner for the
offences under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act. As
against the same, the Revision Petitioner had filed Crl.RC.No.1272 of 2026,
which was dismissed, as withdrawn, with a liberty to file a fresh affidavit
well drafted, on 30.06.2026. Thereafter, the present Criminal Revision Case
has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.
6. During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the Prosecution had
filed a clarification report, dated 31.08.2026, stating that investigation was
completed and a preliminary charge sheet was filed on 05.12.2024 and that
since the other accused could not be traced, the preliminary charge sheet may
be taken as the final report.
7. This Court heard Mr.G.R.Deepak, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) for the Respondent.
__________
Page3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the
Revision Petitioner had neither induced the defacto complainant to part with
the money nor derived any wrongful gain from the transactions, inasmuch as
the amount credited to his account was immediately and entirely transferred
to numerous other accounts on the same day, without any retention or
utilisation thereof, by the Revision Petitioner and that the Revision Petitioner
had also made a complaint before the concerned Cyber Crime Authorities,
regarding the transactions, even before the present complaint made by the
defacto complainant and that his bank account had been used, without his
knowledge and that the materials on record do not disclose the commission of
the alleged offences, by the Revision Petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that in
Crl.RC.No.1661 of 2025, filed by the Revision Petitioner as against the order
dated, 28.08.2025, in CMP.No.6078 of 2025, in CC.No.145 of 2025, this
Court, while dismissing the said Criminal Revision Case, by the order dated,
22.01.2026, had granted liberty to the Revision Petitioner to file a discharge
petition, if he is able to make out a case for discharge, after filing of the final
report.
10.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that
when a final report/ supplementary report has not been filed by the
Respondent Police, the Trial Court, by the impugned order, had erroneously
proceeded to frame charges against the Revision Petitioner, without waiting
__________
Page4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
for a supplementary charge sheet/final charge sheet. The learned counsel has
further submitted that only a preliminary report under Section 193(9) of
BNSS, dated 05.12.2024, stating that since the accused cheated the
complainant online and obtained money, the accused had committed the
offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act,
2000 and the accomplices of the accused in this case are yet to be identified,
was filed and hence, before completion of the investigation, it cannot be
treated as a final report, satisfying the requirements of Section 193 of BNSS
and hence, the impugned order, framing of charges based on such an
incomplete report or a preliminary report is unsustainable in law. Also, the
liberty given to the Revision Petitioner, by this Court, to seek discharge
under Section 262 of BNSS after completion of investigation and filing of the
the final charge sheet, was denied. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
11.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has submitted
that the materials, collected during the investigation disclose the receipt of
substantial amounts in the bank account, attributed to the Revision Petitioner
and the subsequent transfer of those amounts to various other accounts. It is
further submitted that the allegations relating to the transactions, the linkage
of the bank account and mobile number to the Revision Petitioner and the
alleged knowledge of the transactions, provide sufficient grounds to proceed
against the Revision Petitioner and that therefore, the impugned order,
__________
Page5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
framing charges, against the Revision Petitioner, for the offences under
Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, does not warrant
interference by this Court.
12. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and also perused the entire materials placed on record.
13.Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned
order, framing charges against the Revision Petitioner, based on the
preliminary charge sheet and in the absence of a supplementary or further
final report, warrants interference, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
14.At the outset, it is relevant to refer to Section 420 of IPC (Section 318(4) of
BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 , which
read as under:-
Section 420 of IPC:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000:- Punishment
for cheating by personation by using computer resource. -
Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer
resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees."
__________
Page6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
15. Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , reads as
follows:-
“193. Report of police officer on completion of investigation:-
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed
without unnecessary delay.
(2) The investigation in relation to an offence under sections 64, 65,
66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under
sections 4, 6, 8 or section 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 shall be completed within two months
from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer
in charge of the police station.
(3)(i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge
of the police station shall forward, including through electronic
communication to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
offence on a police report, a report in the form as the State
Government may, by rules provide, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the
circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so,
by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond;
(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under section
190;
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has
been attached where investigation relates to an offence under
sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023;
__________
Page7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;
(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform the
progress of the investigation by any means including through
electronic communication to the informant or the victim;
(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State
Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the
person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission
of the offence was first given.
(4) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under
section 177, the report shall, in any case in which the State
Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted
through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make
further investigation.
(5) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section
that the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond, the
Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or
bail bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(6) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 190
applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with
the report-(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which
the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the
Magistrate during investigation;(b) the statements recorded under
section 180 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to
examine as its witnesses.
(7) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such
statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or
that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of
justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that
part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to
exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and
stating his reasons for making such request.
(8) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (7), the police
officer investigating the case shall also submit such number of copies
of the police report along with other documents duly indexed to the
__________
Page8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
Magistrate for supply to the accused as required under section
230:Provided that supply of report and other documents by
electronic communication shall be considered as duly served.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further
investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section
(3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such
investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains
further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the
form as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the
provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a
report forwarded under sub-section (3):
Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted
with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall
be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended
with the permission of the Court. ”
16. In this case, as per the clarification report, dated 31.08.2026, filed by the
Prosecution, the investigation was already completed and the preliminary
charge sheet was filed on 05.12.2024, based on which the impugned order,
framing charges against the Revision Petitioner for the offences under
Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, was passsed by the Trial
Court. It is also stated in the said clarification report that since the Revision
Petitioner/first accused has not extended proper cooperation and since the
other accused could not be traced, the preliminary charge sheet may be taken
as the final report. Thus, the said preliminary charge sheet can be treated as
the final report.
17.In 2018 13 SCC 455 (State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs.
S.Selvi and another), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has relied on
__________
Page9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
its various decisions, regarding the scope of powers of revision, and has held
as under:-
“ 6. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of judgments,
including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India
v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] ,
Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra[Dilawar Balu
Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 310] , Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9
SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] , State v. A. Arun Kumar
[State v. A. Arun Kumar, (2015) 2 SCC 417 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)
96 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 505] , Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta[Sonu
Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)
265] , State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi, (2003) 2 SCC 711 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 688] ,
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
[Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya,
(1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47] and Supt. & Remembrancer
of Legal Affairsv. Anil Kumar Bhunja [Supt. & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC
(Cri) 1038], that the Judge while considering the question of
framing charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases
(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases)
has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out; where the material placed
before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully
justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider
the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements
and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that
the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial.
7. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368
: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] , this Court on consideration of the
__________
Page10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code, laid down the following principles: (SCC pp. 376-77, para
21)
“(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form
an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can
frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge
the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the
broad probabilities of the case.
__________
Page11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.”
8. This Court in State v. A. Arun Kumar [State v. A. Arun Kumar,
(2015) 2 SCC 417 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 96 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S)
505] , Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta,
(2015) 3 SCC 424 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265] , State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2003) 2 SCC 711 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 688] and State of T.N. v. N.
Suresh Rajan[State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC
709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] has
reiterated almost the aforementioned principles. However, in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , relied upon by the
counsel for Respondent 1 is not applicable to the facts of the case
inasmuch as the said matter arose out of the judgement of the High
Court quashing the entire criminal proceedings inclusive of the
registration of first information report. The said matter was not
concerned with the discharge of the accused.
10. If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form
prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the
offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value
of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not
expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials
would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the
material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code,
as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that
at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the
Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought
on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material
with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken
at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the
offence.“
__________
Page12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
18.In 2012-9-SCC-460 ( Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander) , the Honourable
Supreme Court had explained the principles, governing the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction in criminal proceedings and held that interference with
an order framing charges is warranted, where the order suffers from a patent
legal infirmity or where the materials, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.
19.If there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court to think that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is
not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused, which is
to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie
whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not, as has been held in
2015 2 SCC 417 (State Vs. A.Arun Kumar).
20.In 2024-14-SCC-122 (Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of UP), the Honourable
Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“” 15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu Kujur [Dablu
Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)
356] refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Bhagwant Singh v.
CBI [Bhagwant Singh v. CBI, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri)
267] , and discusses the power and the role of the Magistrate when
he receives the police report and the options available to him, in the
following words: (Dablu Kujur case [Dablu Kujur v. State of
Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 356] , SCC pp.
764-65, para 15)
“ 15. When such a police report concludes that an offence appears to
have been committed by a particular person or persons, the
Magistrate has three options:
__________
Page13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
(i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and
issue process,
(ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of
Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or
(iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or
drop the proceedings.
If such police report concludes that no offence appears to have been
committed, the Magistrate again has three options:
(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or
(ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the
offence and issue process, or
(iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police
under sub-section (3) of Section 156.”
26. In support of our reasoning, we would refer to the very next
paragraph in the judgment of Shetty, J. in K. Veeraswami [K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
734] which reads as under: (SCC p. 716, para 76)
“76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer
under Section 173(2)CrPC. Section 173(2) provides that on
completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a
cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the
form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein: (a) the
names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names
of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances
of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed
and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f)
whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or
without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody
under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain
Musadi v. State of Bihar [Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar,
(1980) 3 SCC 152 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the statutory
requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied
with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the
__________
Page14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
report. This report is an intimation to the Magistrate that upon
investigation into a cognizable offence the investigating officer has
been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into
the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court.
In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of
the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been
able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the
court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the
documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section
175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the
investigating officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the
offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be
proved to bring home the guilt of the accused at a later stage i.e. in
the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.
This paragraph examines the contents of the charge-sheet and on
elaboration of the same holds that it is in accordance with the terms
of Section 173(2) of the Code as well as the provisions of the penal
enactment. In furtherance of this, reference is made to Satya Narain
Musadi v. State of Bihar [Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar,
(1980) 3 SCC 152 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] , in stating that the charge-
sheet should comply with the statutory requirements, and the various
details prescribed therein should be included in the report. ”
21. Section 420 of IPC:- The material should disclose cheating and dishonest
inducement to deliver property, or to make, alter or destroy a valuable
security, as specified by the Section.
22. Section 66D of the IT Act:- The material should disclose cheating by
personation through a communication device or computer resource. Mere use
of the internet or a false identity, without the necessary elements of the
offence, is not automatically sufficient.
23.It is also relevant to add at this stage that the expressions “charge-sheet” or
“final report” is not used in the BNSS, but only the expression “Report” is
used. But, it is understood from the Police Manuals of the States that a
__________
Page15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
report filed by the Police is described as a “charge-sheet”.
24.When the Trial Court is of the opinion on analysis of the materials collected
during the investigation that there is “strong suspicion” against the accused
and there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed the
alleged offence, there is no impediment for the said Court to frame charges
even on a preliminary charge sheet or preliminary report, provided that it
shall meet the requirments of Section 193 of BNSS and it must be in the form
prescribed by the State Government.
25. It is also to be noted that, at the stage of framing charges, the Court is
required to examine as to whether the materials collected by the Prosecution
disclose a prima facie case or give rise to sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused. The defence of the accused and the evidentiary value of
the materials relied upon by the Prosecution cannot be subjected to a full-
fledged adjudication, at this preliminary stage.
26. In the present case, the Prosecution materials disclose that an amount of
Rs.5,28,000/- was allegedly credited to the bank account, attributed to the
Revision Petitioner and that the amounts were, thereafter, transferred to
various other bank accounts. The Prosecution further relied upon the
transactions aggregating to Rs.2,53,54,365/- in the said account, during the
relevant period and also the particulars of the mobile number linked to that
account. The investigating officer has specifically alleged that the
transactions were carried out with the knowledge of the Revision Petitioner.
__________
Page16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
Thus, the preliminary report, prima facie, discloses sufficient grounds and
necessary ingredients to proceed against the Revision Petitioner, for the
offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act.
27.The main contention of the Revision Petitioner is relating to non-filing of
the final report and the effect of the preliminary charge sheet dated
05.12.2024. The mere fact that the investigating agency proposes to conduct
further investigation to identify other persons allegedly involved in the
transactions does not, by itself, invalidate a report that otherwise satisfies the
statutory requirements. Further investigation may be undertaken in
accordance with law, and the materials subsequently collected may be placed
before the competent Court by way of a further report, wherever permissible.
28.In the present case, the Prosecution has placed reliance upon the preliminary
charge sheet, dated 05.12.2024, which contains specific allegations, regarding
the bank account attributed to the Revision Petitioner, the substantial
transactions recorded therein, the subsequent transfer of funds and the alleged
knowledge of the transactions. If, upon examination of the original records,
the said report is found to satisfy the applicable statutory requirements and
the materials accompanying it, disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the Revision Petitioner, the mere fact that further investigation
remains pending in respect of the other accused or the absence of final report,
would not, by itself, furnish a ground for setting aside the impugned order,
framing charges.
__________
Page17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
29.As stated above, as per the clarification report, dated 31.08.2026, stating that
investigation was completed and that since the other accused could not be
traced, the preliminary charge sheet be taken as the final report, filed by the
Prosecution, the preliminary charge sheet, dated 05.12.2024, can be
construed as a final report or final charge sheet, as it satisfied the
requirements of Section 193 of BNSS and contained sufficient grounds and
necessary ingredients to proceed against the Revision Petitioner and hence,
the mere description “preliminary charge sheet” may not necessarily
invalidate it. In such view of the matter, the Trial Court is justified in passing
the impugned order, framing charges based on the preliminary charge sheet,
dated 05.12.2024, which was later described as “final charge sheet” or “final
report”, by the Prosecution, by the clarification report, dated 31.08.2026.
30.The contention that the Revision Petitioner did not derive any wrongful gain
also requires consideration in the context of the entire Prosecution case. The
mere transfer of the amounts to other accounts does not, by itself, establish
that the Revision Petitioner acted innocently. However, the Court is
concerned with the existence of sufficient grounds and necessary ingredients
for the offences alleged against the Revision Petitioner to proceed against
him and not with a final verdict of guilt or innocence of the Revision
Petitioner.
31.The further contention that the Revision Petitioner had lodged a complaint
before the Cyber Crime Authorities also does not, by itself, conclude the
__________
Page18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
issue. The contents of the complaint, the circumstances, in which it was
lodged and its relationship to the transactions in question are matters to be
considered along with the other evidence.
32.In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner,
relating to the order, dated 22.01.2026 passed in Crl.R.C.No.1661 of 2025 by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is concerned, this Court, while
dismissing the said Criminal Revision Case, challenging the rejection of the
earlier discharge petition, had granted liberty to the Revision Petitioner to file
a discharge petition, if he was able to make out a case for discharge, after the
filing of the final report. The said order did not record any finding on the
ultimate guilt or innocence of the Revision Petitioner and it did not also
contain any express direction, restraining the Trial Court from framing
charges, against the Revision Petitioner, before the final report. The earlier
order cannot be construed, as dispensing with the statutory requirements for
framing charges. The fact that liberty was granted to seek discharge after the
filing of the final report does not, by itself, determine whether the impugned
order is legally sustainable.
33. The contentions raised on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, relating to his
knowledge, intention, participation in the alleged transactions and the
absence of direct inducement, non-retention of the amounts and the alleged
use of his account, without his knowledge, involve questions that must be
considered in the light of the Prosecution materials as a whole and after a full
__________
Page19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
trial. If the materials disclose a prima facie case, those contentions of the
Revision Petitioner do not, by themselves, warrant interference, with the
impugned order, framing charges. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable
to be confirmed.
34. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
interfere with the impugned order, framing charges, against the Revision
Petitioner, merely on the basis of the contentions advanced by the Revision
Petitioner. The contentions of the Revision Petitioner are matters to be
adjudicated on the basis of the evidence, in accordance with law.
35.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . The impugned order,
dated 26.02.2026, passed in CC.No.145 of 2025, by the Judicial Magistrate
No.IV, Coimbatore, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The Trial
Court shall proceed with the case, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by
any of the observations made in this order.
36.The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial
Court concenred, for its compliance and information, immediately.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
__________
Page20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police, District Cyber Crime II Police Station, Coimbatore.
__________
Page21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
2026:MHC:4345
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 2403 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )