Bilal Hyder vs Moheb Ismail

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012498382026}
1. Bilal Hyder
2. Hafila Parveen
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Moheb Ismail
2. State rep by the Inspector of Police
J8 Neelankarai Police Station,
Chennai
(Crime No.439 of 2024)
..Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to
call for the entire records in C.C.No.301 of 2025 on the file of the learned
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai and Quash
the same.
For Petitioners: Mr. M. Rajavelu
For Respondents: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.301 of 2025 filed by the
first respondent police for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, as
against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the defacto
complainant worked in Singapore and regularly remitted his salary to his wife
(the de facto complainant) through banking channels. The accused persons met
the defacto complainant and induced her to invest money in their trading
company, namely HNFS, promising a monthly interest rate of 14%. Believing
the words of the accused, the defacto complainant invested a substantial sum of
Rs. 52,50,000/-. However, the accused subsequently failed to pay any returns or
refund the principal, thereby cheating her of the entire amount. Consequently,
the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent, who
registered a First Information Report on 28.09.2024 in Cr. No. 428 of 2024
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completing
the investigation, the 2nd respondent filed a final report in C.C. No. 301 of
2025, which is currently pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai, against the accused.
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No. 439 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No. 301 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif
Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai. Hence he prayed to quash
the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in
this case
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the
witnesses, it is revealed that there are specific allegations against the petitioners,
which are sufficient to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
The veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon
the appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition
to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no
jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that
there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima
facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial
Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court
while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019 ) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, held that the High Courts cannot
record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be
tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore,
this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment
of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to
whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the
ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court
can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have
been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the
complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged.
Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.301 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif
Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chennai. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However the personal
nd
appearance of the 2 petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by
a counsel after filing appropriate application and the 2nd petitioner shall be
present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges,
questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
msv/arl
To
The Inspector of Police
J8 Neelankarai Police Station,
Chennai
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )

CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
MSV
CRL OP No. 30451 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 02:28:42 pm )