Lydia Rayan vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012287632026}
Lydia Rayan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Team VI,
Tambaram City Police,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai.
Crime NO.119 of 2022
2. M/s. Eesaa Constructions Private Limited
Rep by its Director,
Mr.K.V.Sridharan,
NO.7, SS Avenue,
OMR,
Padur,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNS, praying
to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime NO. 119 of 2022 on the file
of the First Respondent and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is
concerned.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Mohanavadivelan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.119 of 2022
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 409, 420,
465, 467, 471 of IPC r/w 120 (B) of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant, who is
engaged in the construction business, became acquainted with A1 and A2
through one Thanikachalam(A4). The de-facto complainant sought financial
assistance to expand his business. Taking advantage of this situation, the
accused falsely promised to secure an investment of Rs.30 crores from a
Mumbai-based company. By showing an original demand draft for Rs.9 crores
as if it were the first instalment, they received a total sum of Rs.6.25 crores
through two separate accounts. However, with the intention to cheat the de-
facto complainant, the accused later cancelled the said demand draft and thereby
cheated him. When the de-facto complainant demanded repayment of the
amount paid, the accused evaded him. Based on the complaint lodged by the de-
facto complainant, an FIR in Crime No.119 of 2022 was registered for
offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471 of IPC r/w 120 (B) of IPC
against the accused.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 409,
420, 465, 467, 471 of IPC r/w 120 (B) of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence
he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be
investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that
the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this
Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has
to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
procedures prescribed in the Code.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in it’s judgment reported in
2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The
State of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held
that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required
to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the
offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the
accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of
the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate
must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to
conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken
for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do
not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it
can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a
meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading
of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there
would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process,
it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal
complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made
therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the
judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. , as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under  Section 482  Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Team VI,
Tambaram City Police,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai.
Crime NO.119 of 2022
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )

CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 30077 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 01:31:48 pm )