R.Karpagam vs Inspector of Police,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011725352026}
and
CRL MP No. 14618 of 2026,CRL MP No. 14614 of 2026
1. R.Karpagam
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Inspector of Police,
SPE.CBI ACB, Chennai.
2.United Bank of India
Coimbatore Branch.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To call for the records in CC.No.7 of 2011 pending on the file of the Additional
District Court No.II for CBI Cases, Coimbatore District and quash the same and
pass other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case and render Justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Abrar Mohamed Abdulla
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor for
CBI For R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the third accused in C.C. No.7 of 2011 on the file of the
Additional District Court No.II for CBI cases in Coimbatore. The petitioner
seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against her.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and her husband, one
Ramamoorthy are running a partnership firm under the name and style of
"M/s.Sri Lakshmi Textile Mills" at Somanur, Coimbatore District. The firm
represented by its partners had availed several credit facilities from M/s. City
Union Bank, P.N. Palayam Branch, Coimbatore. The firm suffered losses and as
on 31.07.2005, owed a sum of Rs. 18 Crores to the said Bank.
3. Earlier, the petitioner’s husband had approached the fifth accused, who
was then the Manager of the United Bank of India, Coimbatore. The fifth
accused had recommended the loan proposals that had been placed by the
petitioner’s husband to the United Bank of India. This was done despite the fact
that the firm was suffering from losses. Thereafter, the fifth accused, along with
A1, A2, and the petitioner herein, entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the
United Bank of India by fraudulently sanctioning the limit of Rs.8 Crores to
M/s.Sri Lakshmi Textile Mills.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
4. According to the petitioner, the transaction is a loan transaction and the
loan account had been assigned by the Bank to one M/s. International Asset
Reconstruction Company on 02.04.2009 for a consideration of Rs.2.27 Crores.
The petitioner further states that the charge sheet was filed under an erroneous
impression that the entire loan facility was secured solely with the mortgaged
property and the alleged overvaluation of the property amounted to an offence
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is further alleged that the petitioner had approached M/s.
International Asset Reconstruction Company and had paid a sum of Rs.2.77
Crores and obtained a "No Dues Certificate" on 10.11.2010. Since the civil
liability arising out of the loan transaction had been discharged, continuation of
the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts are unwarranted. It is further
urged that there is no mens rea as required under Section 420 as set forth in the
charge sheet.
6. Taking into consideration the pleas of the petitioner, notice was
ordered, calling upon the first respondent / CBI to file the counter. Counter
affidavit was also filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
7. Heard Mr. Abrab Mohamed Abdulla for the petitioner and Mr. K.
Srinivasan, Spl. P.P. (CBI) for the first respondent.
8. The position of law has been well settled by the Supreme Court that for
the mere extinguishment of civil liability, criminal liability automatically does
not stand extinguished. A perusal of paragraph No.30 of the counter points out
that the petitioner herein had signed the following documents:
"1. Current Account Opening form;
2. Specimen Signature Card;
3. Net Worth Statement;
4. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated Nil along
with copy of M/s.Overstock.Com, USA Purchase Order
No.16607 dated 04.04.2005 seeking Rs.122 Lakhs Packing
credit;
5. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated 28.09.2005
along with copy of M/s.Chimes. Inc, USA Purchase Order
No.CH-126 dated 20.04.2005 secking Rs.108 Lakhs
Packing Credit;
6. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated 28.09.2005
along with copy of M/s.Chimes.Inc, USA Purchase Order
No.CH-143 dated 31.05.2005 seeking Rs.59 Lakhs Packing
Credit;
7. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated 28.09.2005
along with copy of M/s.Overstock.Com Purchase Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
No.16632 dated 05.04.2005 seeking Rs.68 Lakhs Packing
Credit;
8. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated 28.09.2005
along with copy of M/s.Overstock.Com Purchase Order
No.16633 dated 05.04.2005 seeking Rs.68 Lakhs Packing
Credit;
9. Packing Credit Charge Form-O dated 07.10.2005
along with copy of M/s.Overstock.Com Purchase Order
No.21247 dated 14.09.2005 seeking Rs.1.65 Crores
Packing Credit;
10. Packing Credit Charge Form- O dated
07.03.2006 2005 without any copy of Purchase Order
seeking Rs.34 Lakhs Packing Credit;
11. All the Packing Credit Applications in the name
of Smt.Karpagarm and concerned Debit Vouchers; and
12. Foreign Bill Account No.TPR/FBP/370021/06 dt.
08.03.206, etc. LW-2 Shri B.Krishna Mohan, Branch
Manager, UBI, Tirupur while examined as PW-8 by the
Trial Court, he has duly exhibited the above documents."
9. Apart from this, PW8, the Branch Manager of the United Bank of
India, Tirupur during the relevant point of time has also entered the witness box
in order to speak about the active role played by the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
10. It is not a case of mere suspicion for this Court to interfere under
Section 528 of BNSS. A reading of the charge sheet shows that in active
connivance with the Managers of the Bank during the relevant point of time,
M/s.Sri Lakshmi Textile Mills, along with Mr. Ramamoorthy and the petitioner
herein utter contravention of law had defalcated crores of rupees from the
United Bank of India. Furthermore, the petitioner had earlier filed an
application for discharge and the same had been dismissed. The petitioner has
not challenged the said order before this Court.
11. Overall, I am convinced that the charge sheet does not attract any of
the requirements laid down in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan lal,
AIR 1992 SC 604. It shows that the petitioner falls under the category of grave
suspicion and not a case of mere suspicion. As trial has already commenced, I
am not inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court under Section 528
of the BNSS and quash the proceedings.
12. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ab
To
1.The Additional District Court No.II
for CBI Cases, Coimbatore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
3. The Inspector of Police,
SPE.CBI ACB, Chennai.
4.United Bank of India
Coimbatore Branch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 22044 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
ab
CRL OP No. 22044 of
2026
and CRL MP No. 14618
of 2026,CRL MP No.
14614 of 2026
26-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:24:53 pm )