Elangovelrajan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 07.10.2026
Pronounced on : 11.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010168362025}
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1881 of 2025
Elangovelrajan
..Petitioner(s)/A4
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
CBCID-OCU,
Crime No. 4/2021,
Madurai District.
2. Chandrasekar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in PRC.
No.584 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai,
quash the same as against the petitioner / Accused No.4 are concerned.
For Petitioner(s) :M/S.SUBASH BABU
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Subash LAW OFFICE
For Respondent(s) : M/s.P.Samuel Gunasingh
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
M/S. S.M.P.AMALAN FOR
M/s.MARIMUTHU.M
FOR R2
__________
Page  1  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the fourth
accused in P.R.C.No.584 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, seeking to quash the charge sheet, in which
he stands charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B),
420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
Brief facts of the prosecution case:-
2. The second respondent is a businessman hailing from Bangalore.
In September 2018, he came to be introduced to A1-Rajendran, A2-
Murugaiah and A3-Boopathy, who held out a promise that they would
arrange a loan of Rs.75 crores for him. Believing the said representation,
the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.1.5 crores to A1 on 12.10.2018
towards commission at the rate of 2%. He also handed over 14 signed
blank cheque leaves and 6 signed blank promissory notes by way of
collateral security. However, no loan was ever arranged. On the
complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.41 of
2018 came to be registered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Madurai, on 20.12.2018 against A1 to A3. The investigation was
__________
Page  2  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
subsequently transferred to the CBCID and the case was re-registered as
Crime No.4 of 2021.

3. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and
has been arrayed as an accused only in the final report. According to the
final report, the petitioner was in the company of A1 to A3 and made use
of one of the signed promissory notes. The said promissory note was
filled up for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, as if it had been executed in the year
2016 in favour of A1, and the petitioner is said to have instituted a suit in
O.S.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, on the
strength of the said promissory note. The relevant paragraph of the final
report concludes that A4-Elangovelrajan has committed the offence under
Section 471 of I.P.C. In the counter affidavit dated 11.03.2025, the first
respondent has placed reliance upon the statements of L.W.12-
Marichamy, L.W.14-Omprakash, L.W.15-Ramraj and L.W.16-
Kubendran. According to L.W.14-Omprakash, an Advocate Clerk, on
26.11.2018, he filled up the blanks in the already signed promissory note
at the petitioner's office as dictated by the petitioner, for which he was
paid Rs.500/-. L.W.15-Ramraj and L.W.16-Kubendran, who were the
drivers of A1, have signed as attesting witnesses. L.W.12-Marichamy has
stated that he signed certain papers in the petitioner's office, and that a
__________
Page  3  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
cheque of the second respondent for Rs.15 lakhs was later presented in
his name and returned unpaid. The suit in O.S.No.220 of 2018 came to be
dismissed for default on 09.03.2020.

Submissions of the learned counsel on either side:-
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that every act alleged against the petitioner was done only in his
professional capacity as the counsel for A1. It is his submission that the
promissory note bears the admitted signature of the second respondent
and was voluntarily handed over by him to A1, and that, in view of
Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the completion of such an
instrument by its holder would not amount to the making of a false
document. He would further submit that the petitioner neither wrote nor
signed the promissory note and hence, he cannot be termed its "maker".
The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the final report itself
attributes only the offence under Section 471 of I.P.C. to the petitioner,
and even then, it records that he "had reason to believe that it is the
original document".

__________
Page  4  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
5. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that there is
absolutely no allegation of inducement or delivery of property as against
the petitioner, and that there is no material whatsoever to show any
agreement between the petitioner and A1 to A3. He would also point out
that the allegations relating to the cheque do not find a place in the final
report. According to him, the petitioner has been roped in merely because
he filed a suit on behalf of A1.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the first respondent would submit that the petitioner dictated the contents
of the promissory note to L.W.14, as if the second respondent had
borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from A1 on 10.02.2016, whereas the
second respondent was introduced to A1 only in September 2018. He
would further submit that the petitioner thereafter made use of the said
promissory note to file a money suit. It is his further submission that
L.W.12 and L.W.13 have given statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
which lend support to the case of the prosecution, and that the ingredients
of Sections 463 and 471 of I.P.C. are clearly attracted. According to the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the veracity of the evidence is a
matter to be tested by the trial Court, and hence, he prayed that the trial
may not be interdicted at this stage.
__________
Page  5  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has
adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
Discussion:-
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the materials
collected by the prosecution, if taken at their face value, would disclose
the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner/A4. Forgery,
as defined under Section 463 of I.P.C., requires the making of a false
document within the meaning of Section 464 of I.P.C. In the case on
hand, it is not in dispute that the signature found on the promissory note
is that of the second respondent, who himself delivered it to A1. The
blanks were filled up by L.W.14-Omprakash, whom the prosecution has
cited only as a witness and not as an accused. The attestations were made
by L.W.15 and L.W.16. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner wrote or signed any part of the document. The counter affidavit
itself states that the petitioner "only dictated the version". Therefore, even
__________
Page  6  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
on the prosecution's own showing, the petitioner cannot be said to be the
maker of the document.

10. The promissory note was signed and delivered by the second
respondent himself to A1. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
confers upon the holder of such an instrument prima facie authority to
complete it. Whether A1 completed it in excess of the authority given to
him is a matter purely between A1 and the second respondent. There is
no material to show that the petitioner was aware of the terms on which
the note was delivered or that he knew that no debt was due. In the
absence of any material indicating a dishonest or fraudulent intention on
his part, the offence under Section 465 of I.P.C. is not made out against
the petitioner. Sections 467 and 468 of I.P.C. are only aggravated forms
of the same offence and must necessarily fall along with it. In fact, the
counter affidavit does not even attempt to sustain the charges under
Sections 467 and 468 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.

11. Section 471 of I.P.C. requires that the accused fraudulently or
dishonestly used a document as genuine, knowing or having reason to
believe it to be a forged document. The final report itself records that the
__________
Page  7  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
petitioner "had reason to believe that it is the original document" at the
time of filing the suit. A belief on the part of the accused that the
document is genuine is wholly inconsistent with the knowledge that
Section 471 of I.P.C. contemplates. That apart, the suit was filed by A1,
and the petitioner was only A1's counsel. The mere act of an Advocate
filing his client's document in his client's suit, on instructions, would not
by itself amount to fraudulent use of a forged document.

12. The offence of cheating requires deception of a person, whereby
that person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the existence
of a dishonest intention at the time of such inducement. The second
respondent parted with Rs.1.5 crores and the signed instruments on or
before 12.10.2018, on the representations made by A1 to A3. There is not
a shred of material to show that he ever met the petitioner or that he was
induced by the petitioner to deliver anything. The only act attributed to
the petitioner is the filing of O.S.No.220 of 2018. The second respondent
contested the said suit by filing a written statement on 21.10.2019, and
the suit itself came to be dismissed for default on 09.03.2020. Nothing
was received under the suit and no property was delivered. Hence, the
ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. are wholly absent insofar as the
petitioner is concerned.
__________
Page  8  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025

13. The very essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement
between two or more persons to do an illegal act. It is contended on
behalf of the respondents that the petitioner aided the other accused.
Aiding, however, is a facet of abetment under Section 107 of I.P.C. and
not of conspiracy. There is no material placing the petitioner in any
meeting or communication with A1 to A3 when the alleged loan
transaction was conceived and carried out during September and October
2018. Nor is there any material connecting him with the alleged loan
scheme. The object of the alleged conspiracy, namely, obtaining Rs.1.5
crores, had already been achieved well before the act attributed to the
petitioner on 26.11.2018. Thus, the charge of conspiracy against the
petitioner is not supported by any material.

14. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations relating to
the cheque presented in the name of L.W.12-Marichamy do not find a
place in the final report. The petitioner must be tested only on the
accusations contained in the final report on which cognizance was taken,
and those accusations cannot be enlarged by averments made in a counter
affidavit. In any event, the statement of L.W.12 recorded under Section
161(3) Cr.P.C. attributes the arrangement only to A1-Rajendran. It does
__________
Page  9  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
not state that the petitioner filled up, held or presented any cheque. The
counter affidavit itself puts the matter no higher than an inference that the
signature "must have been misused". It is well settled that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of material. An Advocate cannot be
prosecuted along with the other accused for acts done in his professional
capacity. The position would be different only where there is tangible
material to show that he was an active participant in the plan to defraud,
in league with the other conspirators. In the present case, the acts
attributed to the petitioner are drafting, issuing a lawyer's notice and
filing a suit on behalf of his client. There is no material to show that the
petitioner received any portion of the amount or that he had any prior
association with the alleged loan scheme. The prosecution itself admits
that the petitioner's role did not figure in the First Information Report,
and that he came to be arrayed as an accused only in the final report filed
nearly six years thereafter. The remedy of the second respondent in
respect of the disputed promissory note lies only before the civil Court,
where he has, in fact, successfully contested the suit.

15. Taking the materials collected by the prosecution at their face
value, this Court is of the considered view that they do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 465,
__________
Page  10  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner. The case squarely
falls within categories (1) and (3) enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Compelling the petitioner to undergo the
ordeal of trial on such materials would amount to an abuse of the process
of law.
16. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are
confined only to the case of the petitioner/A4. The trial Court shall decide
the case against the other accused on its own merits, uninfluenced by any
of the observations made herein.
Conclusion:-
17. In the result, the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.584 of 2024, now
numbered as C.C.No.654 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, is hereby quashed insofar as the
petitioner/A4 is concerned.
__________
Page  11  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
__________
Page  12  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
CBCID OCU,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  13  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) No. 2791 of 2025
11.11.2026
__________
Page  14  of  14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:59:16 am )