P.Praveenkumar vs State represented by The Inspector of Police,

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.11.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Crl.MP.No.19295 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011813122026}
P.Praveenkumar, S/o.T.Palanisamy,
No.202, 88/89, Gayathri Basil, Maruti Layout,
Kundalahalli, Bengaluru - 560 037. ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch -I, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
2. Nrithya, W/o.Siva Ganesh, Pricol Amber Flow
Apartment, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.
3. The State, Represented by the Inspector of
Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore. ..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, by the Revision
Petitioner/A1, under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS (Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.PC), against the order, dated 25.11.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.10289 of
2025 in Crime (FIR)No.66 of 2024, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VII,
Coimbatore, rejecting the Final Report, dated 20.06.2025, filed by the
Investigating Officer and directing for further investigation, by another
Investigating Officer.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Dinesh, Govt. Advocate (Crl side)
For RR1 and 3
Mr. J. Sivanandharaaj, Senior Counsel for
Mr.E.K.Kumaresan for R2
__________
Page1 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner/A1,
under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS (Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC), against
the order, dated 25.11.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.10289 of 2025 in Crime
(FIR)No.66 of 2024, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore,
rejecting the Final Report, dated 20.06.2025,filed by the Investigating Officer
and directing for further investigation, by another Investigating Officer, by
nd
allowing the protest petition, filed by the 2 Respondent.
2. This Court heard Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) for the Respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.J.Sivanandaraj, the learned senior
counsel, for E.K.Kumaresan, for the 2nd Respondent. Pleadings between the
parties are exchanged.
3. The Revision Petitioner is A1 and the 1st Respondent is the Investigating
Officer, who submitted the final report, dated 20.06.2025 and the 2nd
Respondent is the Defacto Complainant. The 3rd Respondent, is the
Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore, to whom, the further
investigation was transferred, in the garb of the impugned order of the
Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, dated 25.11.2025.
4. The case of the Prosecution, as per the Crime (FIR)No.66 of 2024, dated
nd
21.10.2024, lodged by the 2 Respondent, is as follows:-
__________
Page2 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
(a) M/s.Artemis Auto India (P) Limited, (hereinafter refer to as
nd
M/s.Artemis), was incorporated in the year 2010, by the 2 Respondent,
Nrithya, along with her husband R.B.Sivaganesh and his mother
B.Umamaheswari, as Directors/shareholders of the said Company. M/s
Artemis Auto India (P) Ltd. was the authorised dealer for M/s.Volvo
Auto India Limited (herein after referred to as M/s.Volvo). The Company
had inventory funding account with the HDFC Bank for a very long time
and in the year 2018, SBI approached the Company and the Company
opted to move from HDFC Bank to SBI, as the interest rates were
cheaper.
(b)M/s Artemis had an inventory funding limit of Rs.20 Crores with SBI for
purchase of cars from M/s.Volvo. The billing of cars were possible only
through the SBI inventory account. During December 2019, a sum of
Rs.15 Crores was credited to SBI Inventory funding account for the
purpose of regular business transactions. SBI suddenly claimed that the
inventory account was due for renewal and had to be renewed to utilise
the funds of Rs. 15 Crores for purchase of cars. The account could not be
renewed in time. While so, M/s.Volvo stated that it would not allow
purchase of cars, unless transacted through the said inventory account,
which led to a halt in billing cars by M/s.Volvo for M/s.Artemis, from the
last week of Dec 2019.
(c) The short term lenders, in January 2020 had arranged a meeting between
__________
Page3 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Sivaganesh and Nrithya and one Praveenkumar. The said Praveenkumar
(Revision Petitioner) stated that they are ready to take over the business
along with an agreement to close all libilities and offered to pay Rs.45
Crores. But, they were not willing to accept the take over proposal, as the
price offered by Praveenkumar was only half price and they, quoted a
price of Rs.90 crores for the takeover.
(d)But, Praveenkumar (Revision Petitioner), with an intention to cheat them,
enticed that he will invest in M/s.Artemis to make good the SBI inventory
account and he promised that as soon as the supply of M/s.Volvo cars
comes to a normalcy, the takeover proposal will be attended to for a
better price offered by him and they were coerced to accept the proposal
offered by Praveenkumar. To start with, he said that he will release all the
properties given as collateral to the Banking lenders. Believing his words
to be true, they accepted to hand over the Volvo business to
Praveenkumar and he paid a token advance of Rs.75 lakhs on 22nd of
January 2020, in favour of M/s.Volvo on behalf of M/s.Artemis and took
over the business from 22nd of January 2020.
(e) Praveenkumar, on 24.02.2020, had executed an undertaking letter, taking
control of all the cheques, tax portals, online banking platforms
(including login User ID and Passwords) etc., of the Company and
acknowledged, as authorised person of the new management in writing in
the presence of Company's Auditor, Alagiriswamy of M/s.Alagiriswamy
__________
Page4 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
& Co., Coimbatore. Further, Praveenkumar acknowledged the above
writing with an undertaking that the above related all documents, records
and details were handed over to Praveenkumar. After the handover,
Anushya Devi, E.Karthika, B. Chitra and V.L.N.Bharathi shall not
interfere in the bank operations and future busines transactions, without
the knowledge of the New management". Further, one Diwakar, an
associate of Praveenkumar took the company's Mobile number
7708799900 for doing online transactions, on which all OTPs, messages
related to banks and statutory compliances GST, IT etc., are received.
Thereafter, they took the new management of M/s.Artemis, and their
Staff.
(f) For Inventory Funding facility with SBI, Main Branch, Coimbatore, they
had offered the property at Bangalore as security. With an intention to
knock off the property, all of a sudden, Praveenkumar, under instructions
from his "boss" closed the Inventory Funding Facility with SBI and
released the said property and coerced her to execute a sale deed for the
above said property in favour of M/s. Sun Star Hotels and Estates Pvt
Ltd, on 14.08.2020, without any passage of sale consideration for the said
property, while the market value of the said property at the time of
execution of the sale deed is more than Rs.12 Crores. Further, the sale
consideration, quoted in the sale deed Rs.5.35 Crores, was not paid to us
and it was paid through RTGS to M/s.Artemis account on 06.02.2020.
__________
Page5 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
(g)They received an Income Tax Notice, vide Letters, dated 16.01.2024,
addressing M/s Artemis and dated 13.12.2023, addressing Sivaganesh,
stating that M/s Artemis and Sivaganesh had to pay a huge sum towards
arrears of Income tax. After receiving the said IT Notice, when they
checked their bank account details that was handed over to
Praveenkumar, on 22.01.2020, they found Praveenkumar and his team
to have pumped in money from unknown sources into the personal
accounts of Sivaganesh and from his account routed it to M/s.Artemis's
account. Later, they used to take the money from M/s.Artemis account by
using the said cheques and online banking platforms. The accounts of
Sivaganesh and M/s.Artemis were used for money laundering starting
from 20 January 2020 up to December 2020, to the tune of Rs.21.95
Crores. The quantum of money brought into the account of M/s Artemis
approximately is Rs. 42 crores/- between the period of 30.01.2020 to
30.12.2020. Thus, they are facing the consequences with the Income Tax
Department.
(h)All of a sudden Praveenkumar, Diwakar and their team exited from the
business during December 2020. Since the loan accounts with the Indian
Bank were not settled, Indian Bank declared the accounts as Non-
Performing Assets (NPA). This led to Indian Bank, selling two of our
properties in Coimbatore worth Rs.6 Crores through public auction.
Thereby, they have sustained heavy losses. Praveenkumar warned them
__________
Page6 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
in the September 2024 that they are politically highly influential people,
having muscle and money power and threatened them with dire
consequences if we pursue the matter.
(i) For the above acts and to get back the hard earned money of Rs.90 crores
and also to recover the blank signed papers, company letter heads and
blank signed cheques and to take legal action for the unlawful act of
money laundering, as detailed above, the FIR was registered for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC.
st
5. Thereafter, the case was investigated by the 1 Respondent. After completing
st
investigation, the 1 Respondent/ Investigating Officer had filed a final
report, in FR.No.30 of 2025,dated 20.06.2025, as RCS.No.04 of 2025, before
the Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, closing the investigation, as a
“Mistake of Fact”. The same was taken in file in RCS.No.174 of 2025. As
against the same, the 2nd Respondent/ defacto complainant had filed a protest
petition, in Crl.MP.No.10289 of 2025, dated 16.10.2025, before the Judicial
Magistrate VII. Coimbatore, under Sections 173(8) and 200 of Cr.PC
(Sections 193(8) and 223 of BNSS), seeking to set aside the referred final
report, dated 20.06.2025 and to take cognizance of the offences under
Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC, against the Revision Petitioner/A1 and to
summon the omitted accused, Dharani, as accused in the above case and to
take cognizance against the accused.
6. By the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, the Judicial Magistrate VII,
__________
Page7 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Coimbatore, had declined to accept the Final Report, “As a Mistake of Fact”
and had directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch-1,
Coimbatore, to conduct further investigation himself or to appoint an another
Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation, including the said flaw
and to submit a report, within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
the said order. As against, the same, the Revision Petitioner/A1 has filed, this
Criminal Revision Case, on several grounds.
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has made the following
submissions:-
(a) The impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate
VII, Coimbatore, is not sustainable, in law, since the final report, dated
20.06.2025, filed by the 1st Respondent/ Investigating Officer in the form
of closure report, taken as a “Mistake of Fact”, is completely based on a
thorough and proper investigation. The direction issued by the court
below to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch-1,
Coimbatore, to conduct further investigation himself or to appoint another
officer to conduct further investigation is against the provisions of
Section 156(3) of Cr.PC.
(b)The FIR No.66 of 2024 discloses that the First Information Report was
lodged on 21.10.2024 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B
of IPC against the the Revision Petitioner and other accused, whereas the
date of occurrence, as mentioned in the First Information Report is from
__________
Page8 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
22.01.2020 to 19.10.2024. Thus, the First Information Report is highly
time barred and there is no explanation or reason, whatsoever shown for
lodging the FIR very much belatedly, by the defacto complainant.
(c) The 1st Respondent/Investigating Officer had investigated the matter
thoroughly and in accordance with law, during which, the Investigating
Officer examined 22 documents and recorded the statements of 13
witnesses and found that the allegations levelled by the 2nd
Respondent/defacto complainant, were not sustainable, and filed a Final
Report bearing FR.No.30 of 2025, dated 20.06.2025, before the Judicial
Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, as a Referred Charge Sheet in
RCS.No.04 of 2025, closing the case as "Mistake of Fact” and the same
was taken on file in RCS.No. 174 of 2025.
(d) The Investigating Officer considered the proposed investment by DN
Energy, the Revision Petitioner's due diligence engagement, the
company's financial condition, bank transactions, third-party loans,
property dealings and the conduct of company representatives. The report
recorded that Sivaganesh, husband of the defacto complainant, obtained
Rs.16.50 crores from K.V.Finance and Investment, through financing
arrangements, supported or facilitated by DN Energy, as well as direct
short-term assistance to M/s.Artemis. The report considered loan
documentation, receipts and bank records. The financial records
examined indicated pre-existing liabilities. For FY 2018-19, the report
__________
Page9 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
referred to approximately Rs.53.72 crores in loans and borrowings and
Rs.15.02 crores in unsecured loans, aggregating to Rs.68.74 crores.
(e) The Investigating Officer treated the Revision Petitioner's work, as due
diligence rather than an acquisition of management. The report
considered the continuing participation of M/s.Artemis's Directors in
business and banking transactions, including subsequent dealings with
Prakar Automotive. As to the banking materials, the report referred to
1,159 unsigned cheque leaves and login details handed over on
24.02.2020 for the due-diligence exercise to the Revision Petitioner, and
to a document indicating their return on the following day, i.e. on
25.02.2020. It did not identify a substantiated personal misappropriation
by the Revision Petitioner, as the same was returned to the Defacto
Complainant Management on the next day i.e. On 25.02.2020. The above
letter is filed before this Court, in the additional typed set of papers, at
pages 16 and 22.
(f) During the investigation, one Diwakar stated that the official mobile
number 7708799900 remained with M/s.Artemis and that he and the
Revision Petitioner did not hold OTP-enabled transactional control,
having access for review of financial information. The report did not find
sufficient evidence of coercion, attributable to the petitioner, in respect of
the property at Bengaluru. The report also considered the dealings with
Prakar Automotive, including business assets and payments through
__________
Page10 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
rd
banking channels, and the adverse due-diligence report submitted on 23
July 2020, which is filed in the additional typed set of papers at page 24.
(g)The investigating Officer recorded that the defacto complainant did not
appear despite several summons. The defacto complainant disputed the
implication of non-cooperation. It was further observed by the
Investigating Officer in the final report that the Revision Petitioner
emphatically stated that he did not make any payments, directly or
indirectly, nor did he or DN Energy agree to purchase any assets at any
price. Moreover, they did not provide any sort of commitments, nor
signed any agreements, nor executed any MoUs about transactions, on
behalf of the defacto complainant’s Company.
(h)It was further observed by the Investigation Officer that with respect to
loans and short-term lenders, the Revision Petitioner denied having any
knowledge of the existence or the identities of the short-term lenders or
having had any connection with them. It was entirely Nrithya
Sivaganesh/defacto complainant and her husband, Sivaganesh, who
interacted with those short-term lenders. Further, these loans from
money-lenders was a regular affair for the promoters and had such
continuous dealings much before this due diligence exercise.
(i) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report
that the Revision Petitioner also denied the claim of the complainant with
respect to verification of documents before the alleged take over and
__________
Page11 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
stated that when he collected the documents in Coimbatore for
preliminary assessment of value of the company, it was noticed that the
company had outstanding term loan of INR 2.49 crores and SBI
inventory funding of INR 20 crores and an approximate ODCC (Over
Draft Current Account] outstanding with RBL Bank of Rs.4.9 crores and
Indian Bank of INR 14.5 crores (with no corresponding statement
provided). In addition, statutory liabilities were shown as Rs.11 crores.
On the contrary, during the initial discussions with DN Energy,
Sivaganesh and Nrithya Sivaganesh orally informed that they have a list
of high value assets and very few liabilities, without disclosing any
documentary evidence, such as tally records, bank statements, provisional
statements for ITR filing for FY 2019-20, or GST filings, to justify the
same. None of the asset details was made available to the Revision
Petitioner for due diligence, raising significant concerns regarding their
transparency.
(j) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report that
the Revision Petitioner stated that a tripartite agreement existed between
M/s.Artemis Auto India (P) Ltd, SBI Bank, and M/s.Volvo Auto Limited
India, according to which without the approval of the Principal, no
transfer of dealership can be done. His assertion was that he was not
involved in any discussions with M/s.Volvo Auto Limited India, relating
to the transfer of dealership and he had no authority to communicate with
__________
Page12 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
M/s.Volvo Auto Limited India.
(k)It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report that
the Revision Petitioner stated that to his knowledge and belief,,
M/s.Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd. acted as the lender for
M/s.Artemis Auto India (P) Ltd. The property in question was owned by
Ms.Artemis Auto India (P) Ltd and had been mortgaged to the State Bank
of India. When M/s.Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd requested the
repayment of the loan, Sivaganesh and his spouse/defacto complainant
proposed to sell the property to M/s.Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd to
settle the outstanding loan. In any case, the Revision Petitioner had no
role to play either in the loan transaction or in the sale of property and
the entire allegations appear to be false.
(l) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report that
the Revision Petitioner affirmed that no signed cheques from Sivaganesh,
the husband of the defacto complainant, were ever given to him or to
Diwakar. Regarding the transaction amounting to Rs 21.95 crores, as
mentioned in the complaint, he stated that to his knowledge, only Rs.
18.95 Crores was transferred from the bank account of Sivaganesh to that
of M/s.Artemis. Out of which, Rs.16.50 Crores were received by
Sivaganesh from one M/s.KV Finance and Investment. This loan was
arranged by M/s.DN Energy Private Limited to support Sivaganesh in his
attempts to save M/s.Artemis from various defaults. As far as the
__________
Page13 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Revision Petitioner is concerned, Sivaganesh failed to repay the entire
amount to the above lender. Further, these loans were received by
Sivaganesh much before the entry of the Revision Petiionter or Diwakar,
th
as these loans were obtained between 30 January and 3rd February
2020, whereas the due diligence exercise started on 10th February 2020
and that his due diligence engagement was concluded by end July 2020.
The report was delivered to the Investors on 23rd July 2020, indicating
that the investment was not sound and recommended not to go ahead with
the proposed deal. Based on this report, DN energy called off their
investment and recovered part of their loans.
(m) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report
that summons were issued to the other persons mentioned in the
complaint. Diwakar appeared and furnished his statement, in which he
entirely denied all the allegations in the said complaint. He stated that he
was assisting the Revision Petitioner, in collecting the documents for the
due diligence of M/s.Artemis Auto India Private Limited from 10th
February, 2020 and until 23rd July 2020. He was unaware of any
transactions made by M/s Artemis to any other entities prior to and after
the due diligence exercise was over. He was engaged for this purpose and
his assignment was to keep track of all the payments and receipts and to
follow the instructions of the Revision Petitioner and none else.
(n) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report
__________
Page14 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
that in spite of repeated summons, the defacto complainant never
appeared to furnish any clarifications pertaining to the allegations
mentioned in her complaint. M/s.Artemis is the family owned business of
the defacto complainant Nrithya Shiva Ganesh and family and they could
have given View Rights to perform due diligence by external agency.
Whereas they claim to have given full rights with transaction rights is
unwarranted.
(o) The Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation and considering
all the aspects of the version of the First Information Report, submitted
his final report, finding that no allegation is found to be true against the
Revision Petitioner and observed that if the defacto complainant faced
any coercive approach by the due diligence team, then immediately they
could have approached their banks for restricting their access to their net
banking / or they could have changed the password by themselves. They
could have also changed their mobile number, which has been registered
with their Bank. The defacto complainant has failed to report the
unauthorised financial transactions/security breach, pertaining to their
banking in any of the available modes of report, like denying the access/
mobile number change/change the password block the account/Inform the
same with banking authoritie. Even though if the transactions have been
made by the Revision Petitioner, using the user name password and OTP
of M/s.Artemis, the onus of the transaction lies with the defacto
__________
Page15 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
complainant only.
(p) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report
that what and who stopped the defacto complainant to raise the complaint
then and there? It is presumed that the defacto complainant had made a
complaint, after a lapse of more than three years, only to avoid tracing of
the mobile usage, which could be retrieved only for the last two years.
That mobile number, which was used for receiving OTP from the bank is
inoperative. Hence, it can be concluded that this complaint was drafted
with a mala fide intention. What made them report this complaint after
more than three years. The defacto complainant has failed to furnish
Board Resolution copy or other concrete evidence either to prove or
disprove the allegations cited in the complaint, as narrated in the FIR.
(q) It was further observed by the Investigating Officer in the final report
that it is clear that the operations were vest with the defacto
complainant/Nrithya Sivaganesh and her husband, Sivaganesh for the
entire alleged period and no allegations as mentioned in the FIR stands
proved. The facts discussed in the investigation Report and final report
lead to the findings that the defacto complainant's version as mentioned in
the complaint FIR are not supported or substantiated or proven by
evidence in accordance with law. Hence, the Investigating Officer has
investigated all the aspects of the matter and the version of the First
Information Report and thereafter, as no case was proved against the
__________
Page16 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Revision Petitioner, closed the investigation, as Mistake of Fact, and had
submitted the final report on 20.06.2025.
(r) Aggrieved by the said final report, the 2nd Respondent/defacto
complainant herein had filed the above protest petition under Section
173(8) of Cr.PC read with Section 200 of Cr.PC (Section 193(8) of BNSS
and Section 223 of BNSS) before the Judicial Magistrate VII,
Coimbatore, in Crl.MP.No.10289 of 2025, seeking to set aside the final
report, dated 20.06.2025 and to take cognizance of the offence under
Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC against the Revision Petitioner and
direct for further investigation.
8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that the
court below, without considering the final report submitted by the
Investigating Officer and the fact that all the aspects of the matter had been
properly investigated and when there is no lacunae left, without application of
mind, by the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, allowed the said protest
petition, declining to accept the final report, as a “Mistake of Fact” and
directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch-1,
Coimbatore, to conduct further investigation himself or to appoint any
Investigating Officer to conduct the further investigation and submit his
report, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order. Further more, it was stated that the order of the learned Magistrate
dated 25.11.2025 does not clarify under which provision of the Legislature
__________
Page17 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
whereby further investigation and transfer/change of the Investigation Officer
has been ordered.
9. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that in
the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, the primary findings of the Judicial
Magistrate, as regards the alleged lacuna in the investigation, broadly, are as
under:-
i. The Respondent Police did not address the issue relating to the Written
Undertaking dated 24.02.2020;
ii. The Respondent Police did not enquire the office bearers of M/s.Volvo
Auto India Limited, regarding the meeting stated to have been held on
20.02.2020 at Taj Coromandel, Chennai;
iii. The Respondent Police did not enquire the 2nd Respondent/de facto
complainant;
iv. The Respondent Police did not enquire E.Karthika, B.Chithra and
V.L.N.Bharathi (Accounts Team), who are alleged to have been
instructed by the Petitioner to report directly to him, instead of the 2nd
Respondent;
v. The Respondent Police did not examine the mobile network pertaining to
Mobile No.7708799900, said to belong to the 2nd Respondent's company
M/s. Artemis, so as to ascertain custody of the said mobile phone; and
vi. The Respondent Police did not go into the WhatsApp message alleged to
involve the Accused No.2 regarding the sale of the property at Bangalore
in favour of M/s. Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited.
10. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
being aggrieved by the said order dated, 25.11.2025, passed in
Crl.MP.No.10289 of 2025 and in the absence of any other efficacious
remedy, the Revision Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case, under
__________
Page18 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC (Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS)
and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the present Criminal
Revision Case.
11.The learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent has made preliminary
objections, regarding the maintainability of the present Criminal Revision
Case and submitted that this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable,
before this Court, as against the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025. In
support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel has relied on the
paragraphs 16 of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported
in ( 2001) 7 SCC 536 (Hemant Dhasmana Vs. CBI and another) and
paragraphs 85.4 and 93 of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court
reported in ( 2023) 16 SCC 779 (State through CBI Vs. Hemendhra Reddy
and another) and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgement of the Honourable
Supreme Court reported in ( 1999) 5 SCC 740 (Sri Bhagwan Samardha
Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of AP
and others).
12.In ( 2001) 7 SCC 536 (Hemant Dhasmana Vs. CBI and another), the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
“ 16. Although the said sub-section does not, in specific terms,
mention about the powers of the court to order further investigation,
the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged
therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the court.
When any such order is passed by a court which has the jurisdiction
to do so, it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to
interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be
__________
Page19 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority
conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion
and reiterate it or it can reach a different conclusion. During such
extended investigation, the officers can either act on the same
materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is
for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back
on that track. If they come to the same conclusion, it is of added
advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made,
and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be
in trouble. So from any point of view the Special Judge's direction
would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for
the High Court to predict that the investigating officer would not be
able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which
should have been left to the investigating officer to survey and
recheck.”
13. In ( 2023) 16 SCC 779 (State through CBI Vs. Hemendhra Reddy and
another), the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
“85.4 There is nothing in Cr.PC to suggest that the court is obliged
to hear the accused while considering an application for further
investigation under Section 173(8)Cr.PC.
93. In the aforesaid context, we may only say that the general rule of
criminal justice is that “a crime never dies”. The principle is
reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit
regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against
offenders). It is settled law that the criminal offence is considered as
a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been
committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences,
prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power
to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay
in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for
dismissing the case. Though it may be a relevant circumstance in
reaching a final verdict. (See Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC
394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] ) .
14. In ( 1999) 5 SCC 740 (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha
Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of AP and others), the
__________
Page20 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
“ 10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying
final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any
offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open
to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated
by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2
SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] . The only rider
provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that
the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to
make further investigation.
11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to
conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is
nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear
the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such
obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court
with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be
afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not
require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an
obligation.”
15. The learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent has thus submitted that
in view of the above said judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court,
relied on by him, this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable.
16.The learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent has, further on merits of
the case, submitted that the Revision Petitioner, along with other accused
persons had transferred substantial funds from unknown sources into the
nd
personal accounts of Sivaganesh, husband of the 2 Respondent/defacto
complainant, which were thereafter routed through the Company, to various
other third-party entities and that the Revision Petitioner and other accused
persons used the Company as a conduit for money laundering between
__________
Page21 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
January and December 2020 and that the Respondent Police was reluctant to
conduct actual investigation to unearth the truth and to bring the offenders
before the Court of law and on the other hand, has mechanically accepted the
statement of the accused to be true and closed the Complaint as mistake of
fact, with ulterior motive.
17.The learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent has further submitted that
the learned Magistrate is empowered to pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, after examining the materials placed before the court to
bring out the real culprit and to prevent the offenders from escaping from the
clutches of law and that the Revision Petitioner has not demonstrated any
legally sustainable grounds, warranting interference with the impugned order
dated 25.11.2025.
nd
18.The learned senior counsel for the 2 Respondent has further submitted that
this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed,
as the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, is a reasoned order, passed upon
consideration of the deficiencies in the investigation and the objections raised
by the 2nd Respondent, against the final report filed by the 1ª Respondent and
that the Revision Petitioner has not made out any legally sustainable ground
warranting interference with the impugned order under challenge.
19.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondents 1
st

and 3 has submitted that he has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1
rd
Respondent and he has also appeared for the 3 Respondent, who has been
__________
Page22 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
assigned the investigation, as per the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, but
rd
the 3 Respondent did not proceed further, in view of the interim order,
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 14.08.2026 and has
made objections, supporting the contentions of the learned senior counsel for
the 2nd Respondent/ defacto complainant and submitted that the present
Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.
20.In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, the learned counsel
for the Revision Petition has filed a rejoinder affidavit, denying the averments
of the counter affidavit of the Respondents.
21.In reply to the objections raised by the learned senior counsel for the 2nd
Respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the
Respondents 1 and 3, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has
submitted that the decisions cited by the learned senior counsel for the 2nd
Respondent is not directly applicable to the case of the Revision Petitioner
herein and further submitted that Section 401(2) of Cr.PC (Section 442(2) of
BNSS) provided that a revisional order prejudicial to an accused or other
person, cannot be made, without affording an opportunity of hearing and that
the right to be heard in revision is distinct from the absence of a right of
participation before the Magistrate. In support of his arguments, the learned
counsel for the Revision Petitioner, has relied on the following judgements of
the Honourable Supreme Court:-
1. (2012)-10-SCC-517 (Manharibhal Muljibhai Kakadia and
__________
Page23 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
another vs Shalleshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others) (Para
48)
2. (2020)-6-SCC-625 (Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs Satish
Atmaram Talekar and others), (para 9)
3. (2014)-9-SCC-640 (Bal Manohar Jalan vs Sunil Paswan and
another) (Para 9)
4. (2023)-15-SCC-440 (Santhakumari and others vs State of
Tamilnadu and another), (Para 1 to 8)
5. (2022)-12-SCC-745 (S.P.Velumani Vs. Arappor Iyakkam and
others ) (Para 28 to 29)
6. (2023)-16-SCC-403 (Edappadi Palanisamy Vs. R.S.Bhaathi) (para
1 to 5)
7. (2006)-7-SCC-296 ( Popular Muthiah Vs State) (Para 51 and 52)
8. (2010)-SCC Online-Mad-517 (C.Ve.Shanmugam Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam and others) (Para 24 to
26)
22. In (2012) 10 SCC 517 (Manharibhal Muljibhai Kakadia vs Shalleshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel) , the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe,
as under:-
“ 48. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section
200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section
202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to
whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the
allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination
of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of
Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the
allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the
complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate
under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has
been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under
Section 203—although it is at preliminary stage—nevertheless results
__________
Page24 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who
are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to
such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition
before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section
401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the
Revisional Court although such order was passed without their
participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other person”
under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to
defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused
with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203
and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions
Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of
dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal
of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this
view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived
of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section
401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is pre-
process stage or post process stage.”
23. In (2020) 6 SCC 625 (Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs Satish Atmaram
Talekar and others) , the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe,
as under:-
“ 9. The restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions Judge
was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the appellant. The right of the
appellant to be heard at this stage need not detain us any further in
view of Manharibhai [Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 218]
observing as follows : (SCC p. 544, para 53)
“53. … We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by
the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge
challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under
Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after
following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the
accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is
entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the
complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of
the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by
the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the
Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the
__________
Page25 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a
plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional
Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint
and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent
back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the
complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no right to
participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of
any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the
matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the
question accordingly. The judgments [Parkash Devi v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 454] , [Tata Motors Ltd. v. State, 2009
SCC OnLine Del 308] , [Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001
SCC OnLine P&H 121 : ILR (2001) 2 P&H 388] , [Ratanlal Soni v.
Kailash Narayan Arjariya, 1997 SCC OnLine MP 240 : (1998) 2 MP
LJ 321] , [Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal v. State of Gujarat, 1990 SCC
OnLine Guj 212 : (1991) 1 Guj LR 451] of the High Courts to the
contrary are overruled.”
24. In (2014) 9 SCC 640 (Bal Manohar Jalan vs Sunil Paswan) , the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 9. In the present case challenge is laid to the order dated 4-3-2009 at
the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High
Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused
mentioned in the first information report get the right of hearing before
the Revisional Court although the impugned order therein was passed
without their participation. The appellant who is an accused person
cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision
contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the
impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the
matter has to be remitted.“
25. In (2023) 15 SCC 440 (Santhakumari vs State of Tamilnadu) , the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 5. Having considered the submissions, since it is not in dispute that
the proposed accused were not served notice of the revision
proceedings, the order passed by the High Court is in the teeth of the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Code as interpreted
by this Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia [Manharibhai
Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC
__________
Page26 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
517 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 218] .
6. The decision in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia [Manharibhai
Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC
517 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 218] has also been followed in Bal Manohar
Jalan v. Sunil Paswan [Bal Manohar Jalan v. Sunil Paswan, (2014) 9
SCC 640 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 256] , wherein it was held : (Bal
Manohar Jalan case [Bal Manohar Jalan v. Sunil Paswan, (2014) 9
SCC 640 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 256] , SCC p. 644, para 9)
“9. In the present case challenge is laid to the order dated 4-3-2009 at
the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High
Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused
mentioned in the first information report get the right of hearing before
the Revisional Court although the impugned order [Sunil Paswan v.
State of Bihar, 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 600] therein was passed without
their participation. The appellant who is an accused person cannot be
deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in
Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned order
[Sunil Paswan v. State of Bihar, 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 600] of the
High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted.”
26. In ( 2022) 12 SCC 745 (S.P.Velumani Vs. Arappor Iyakkam) , the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar facts of the instant case, particularly the fact that the High
Court had ordered an enquiry and obtained a report without
furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant and unceremoniously closed
the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to issue the following
directions:
28.1. The High Court is directed to supply a copy of the report
submitted by Ms R. Ponni, Superintendent of Police along with the
other documents to the appellant herein.
28.2. Writ Petition No. 34845 of 2018 and Crl. OP No. 23428 of 2018
are restored on the file of the High Court of Madras.
28.3. The High Court is directed to dispose of the cases on their own
merit, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.
__________
Page27 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
28.4. Although the prayer for quashing of the FIR was not orally
pressed before this Court, however, the appellant is granted liberty to
seek appropriate remedy before the High Court.
29. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of on the above terms. Pending
application, if any, stands disposed of.”
27. In ( 2023) 16 SCC 403 (Edappadi Palanisamy Vs. R.S.Bhaathi) , the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 3. At the outset, both Senior Counsel appearing for the parties agree
that it was no one's case before the High Court that the investigation
should be transferred to the CBI. In fact, it is clear from the record
that the original writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was to register a
case and investigate the complaint dated 13-6-2018 against the
appellant. Subsequently, Respondent 1 sought a new relief by way of a
rejoinder filed before the High Court. The relief sought by Respondent
1 in rejoinder was to direct an impartial investigation by any other
competent police officer or team of police officers and also for the
High Court to monitor the investigation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed to the fact that the
preliminary enquiry report, which had been submitted in a sealed
cover before the High Court, was not even considered by the High
Court. In fact, the High Court specifically noted as follows : (R.S.
Bharathi case [R.S. Bharathi v. State of T.N., 2018 SCC OnLine Mad
3179] , SCC OnLine Mad para 20)
“20. … The learned Advocate General having stated so, that the
respondent had submitted a “Negative Report/Closure Report” not
taking cognisance, there is no necessity for this Court to open the
sealed cover filed before this court.” (emphasis supplied)
However, despite not even looking into the enquiry report or the case
investigation record, the High Court went on to make certain
observations relating to the fairness of the investigation.
5. Apart from the above, it appears that the High Court did not even
seek the impleadment of the appellant, who is the main accused in the
matter, before transferring the investigation to the CBI.“
28. In ( 2006) 7 SCC 296 ( Popular Muthiah Vs State) , the Honourable
__________
Page28 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 51. In a case of this nature, therefore, in our opinion, it would have
been in the fitness of things, the appellant should have been heard by
the High Court.
52. We may, however, hasten to add that our direction is not intended
to lay down the law that while the Magistrate directs a further
investigation or while a Sessions Judge exercises his jurisdiction under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused is entitled
to be heard; he is not as he has no right therefor and, thus, the
question of hearing him at that stage would not arise.“
29. In ( 2010) SCC Online Mad 517 (C.Ve.Shanmugam Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam) , the Honourable Supreme Court
was pleased to observe, as under:-
“26. In the case on hand also, having regard to the peculiar
circumstances of the case and the fact that the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner has no objection for an opportunity being
afforded by the Magistrate to the FIR named accused and to the
respondents 2 to 15 herein, I deem it appropriate to direct the
Magistrate to afford such opportunity to them to make their
submissions. I would, however, hasten to add that this shall not be
taken as a precedent in future, as the liberty given in this case is in
tune with the opinion expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court in
para 51 of the judgement cited supra and because of the consent of the
petitioner.“
30. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that
whether the learned Magistrate has properly exercised the jurisdiction and
whether the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, is sustainable in the eye of
law and whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to change the
investigating officer for further investigation or to appoint a higher rank
police officer for investigation.
__________
Page29 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
31.This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
also perused the entire materials placed on record.
32.After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the
following questions arise for consideration of this Court:-
A)Whether the accused has the right to file a criminal revision case,
challenging an order passed in a protest petition and whether
this Criminal Revision Case is maintainable, in the eye of law?
B) Whether the Magistrate has properly exercised the jurisdiction
vested in it and whether the order dated 25.11.2025 had
considered all the evidence and the materials available on record
and is sustainable in the eye of law?
C)Whether the Magistrate, while directing further investigation,
can change the Investigation Officer and direct a new
Investigation Officer, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
City Crime Branch-1, Coimbatore, to conduct further
investigtion himself or to appoint another investigating officer,
to conduct further investigation, without substantiated findings
of bias or misconduct, against the earlier Investigating Officer?
and Whether the impugned order is perverse and without
Jurisdiction?
Let us understand briefly the concept of Investigation. before proceeding
with the case on merits:-
33. Fair Investigation - Rule of Law:- The criminal justice system mandates
that any investigation into the crime should be fair, in accordance with law
and should not be tainted. It is equally important that interested or influential
persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation, so as to throttle a
__________
Page30 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping punitive course of law.
These are important facets of the rule of law. Breach of rule of law amounts
to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article
21 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the procedure in criminal
trials must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, vide
Menka Gandhi v. Union of India (Air 1978 SC 597) (para-7) and
Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujrat (AIR 2019 SC 5233)
(paras-16 and 17) and Subramanian Swamy v. C.B.I. (2014 8 SCC 682)
(para-86) . Article 21 enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and
personal liberty to a person which can only be deprived on following the
procedure established by law in a fair trial which assures the safety of the
accused. The assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation
of justice, vide Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi (AIR 1997 SC 95) (para-16). The ultimate aim of all
investigation and inquiry whether by the police or by the Magistrate is to
ensure that those who have actually committed a crime, are correctly booked
and those who have not, are not arraigned to stand trial. This is the minimal
and fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Interpretation of provisions of Cr.PC (BNSS) needs to be made so as to
ensure that Article 21 is followed both in letter and in sprit. “A speedy trial”
is the essence of companion in concept in “fair trial”. Both being inalienable
jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
__________
Page31 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
embraces both life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of the victim,
his near and dear ones as well as of the community at large and, therefore,
cannot be alienated from each other. A fair trial includes fair investigation as
reflected from Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the
investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, the
courts may if considered necessary, may order fair investigation, further
investigation or reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as
to prevent miscarriage of justice. However, no hard and fast rules as such can
be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation and decision shall
depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
34.Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer.
In every civilized society, the police force is invested with powers of
investigation of a crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the
interest of the society that the investigating agency must act honestly and
fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only
with a view to secure conviction because such acts shake the confidence of
the common man not only in the investigating agency but in the ultimate
analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice. Proper result must
be obtained by recourse to proper means, otherwise it would be an invitation
to anarchy, vide Rampal Pithwa Rahidas v. State of Maharastra (1994
Suppl. (2) SCC 73) (para-37). Investigation must be fair and effective and
must proceed in the right direction in consonance with the ingredients of the
__________
Page32 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
offence and not in a haphazard manner moreso in serious case. Proper and
fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of
rule of law vide Sasi Thomas v. State (2006 12 SCC 421) (para-15 and 18).
35. Investigation under the Cr.PC (BNSS):- No investigating agency can take
unduly long time in completing investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedy investigation,
inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear need for time line in
completing investigation for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein
accountability for adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed at different
levels in the hierarchy, vide Dilawar v. State of Haryana (2018) 16 SCC
521) (paras 4 to 8), Menka Gandhi (supra), Hussainara Khatoon (I) v.
State of Bihar (1980 1 SCC 81), Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
(1992) 1 SCC 225) and P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnatka (2002) 4
SCC 578).
36.For the purposes of investigation, offences are divided into two categories
“cognizable” and “non-cognizable”. When information of a cognizable
offence is received or such commission is suspected, the proper police officer
has the authority to enter in the investigation of the same but where the
information relates to a non-cognizable offence, he shall not investigate it
without the order of the competent Magistrate. Investigation includes all the
proceedings under Cr.PC(BNSS) for the collection of evidence conducted
by a police officer or by any person other than a Magistrate (who is
__________
Page33 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
authorised by a Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation consists of steps,
namely (i) proceeding to spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery and arrest of the suspected
offender, (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence
and (v) formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected therein to
place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so to take necessary
steps for the same by filing a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C (Section 193
of BNSS), vide H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (AIR 1955 SC 196).
37. Remedy for Proper Investigation:- Section 156(1) of Cr.PC
(Corresponding Section 175(1) of BNSS) confers power upon any officer in-
charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable case. Section 156(3)
of Cr.PC (Corresponding Section 175(3) of BNSS) provides for a cheque by
the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII, Cr.P.C
(Chapter XIII of BNSS).
In cases where the Magistrate finds that police has not done its duty of
investigating the case at all or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a
direction to the police to do the investigation properly and can monitor the
same.
38.Question A:- Whether the accused has the right to file a criminal
revision case, challenging an order passed in a protest petition and
whether this Criminal Revision Case is maintainable, in the eye of law?
39.Section 442(2) BNSS (Corresponding to Section 401(2) of Cr.PC) provides
that a revisional order prejudicial to an accused or other person cannot be
made without affording an opportunity of hearing. The right to be heard in
revision is distinct from the absence of a right of participation before the
__________
Page34 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Magistrate.
40. In (2012) 10 SCC 517 (Manharibhal Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs
Shalleshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others), cited supra, the Honourable
Supreme Court had held that the right given to an "accused or "the other
person" under Section 401(2) of Cr.PC of being heard before the Revisional
Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused
with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and
204 of Cr.PC. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions
Judge at the instance of the complainant, challenging the order of dismissal of
complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of
dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen in reversal of the
order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the
matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the
face of the express provision contained in Section 401( 2) of the Code.
Therefore, the persons, named in a Complaint dismissed under Section 203
Cr.PC, are entitled to a hearing in the revision. Their non-participation at the
Magistrate stage does not defeat the revisional hearing protection.
41. In (2020) 6 SCC 625 (Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs Satish Atmaram
Talekar), cited supra, it was held by the Honourable Supeme Court that a
police report, finding the allegations as false, was filed and the Protest
Petition was dismissed and that the Complainant obtained a revisional order
without hearing the accused. The Court set aside the order and directed
__________
Page35 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
reconsideration after hearing the accused. The operative reasoning applied
Section 401 (2) CrPC and the precedent in Manharibhai Muljibhal Kakadia
(Supra) that stated that the accused is entitled to be heard in the revisional
hearing.
42.In (2014) 9 SCC 640, (Bal Manohar Jalan vs Sunil Paswan) cited supra,
the Honourable Supreme Court stated that in the present case, challenge is
laid to the order dated 04.03.2009 at the instance of the complainant, in the
revision petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401 (2) of the
Code, the accused mentioned in the first information report get the right of
hearing before the Revisional Court, although the impugned order therein
was passed without their participation. The appellant, who is an accused
person, cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision
contained in Section 401 (2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned
order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be
remitted. The Honourable Court reaffirmed that right to a hearing is available
to an accused named in an FIR, where a complainant's revision could
prejudice him.
43.In the judgment reported in (2023) 15 SCC 440, Santhakumari v. State of
Tamil Nadu , cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the
requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused
before passing an adverse order in revision, where such order would
prejudice their rights.
__________
Page36 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
44.In the case of S.P.Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, reported in (2022) 12
SCC 745 , cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court directed that the
relevant report and documents be furnished and that the matter be considered
afresh and held that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his
case based on the material that had exonerated him initially.
45.In the case of Edappadi Palanisamy v. R.S. Bharathi, reported in (2023)
16 SCC 403 , cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court interfered with the
directions issued by the High Court for a CBI enquiry, particularly when the
earlier enquiry report had not been adequately considered and the affected
person had not been impleaded.
46.In the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296 ,
cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that, in appropriate
circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to afford an opportunity of
hearing to the affected person before the High Court.
47.In the case of C.Ve.Shanmugam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tindivanam, reported in (2010) SCC OnLine Mad 517 , cites supra, the
Honourable Supreme Court held that it is appropriate to direct the Magistrate
to afford an opportunity to the accused to make their submissions.
48.A conjoint reading of the above decisions makes it clear that the question of
affording an opportunity of hearing depends upon the nature of the
proceedings and the consequences of the order proposed to be passed.
Though an accused has no general right of audience before the Magistrate at
__________
Page37 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
the stage of considering a protest petition or directing further investigation,
such a limitation cannot, by itself, be construed as an absolute bar against
invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the applicable
statutory provisions.
49.In the present case, the Revision Petitioner is directly aggrieved by the order
dated 25.11.2025, whereby the Final Report submitted by the Investigating
Officer was not accepted and further investigation was directed to be
conducted by a different Investigating Officer. The Revision Petitioner has
challenged the legality and propriety of the said order on various grounds,
including non-consideration of material documents and the alleged exercise
of jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by law. Therefore, the
preliminary objection raised by the learned senior counsel for the 2nd
Respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the
Respondents 1 and 3, regarding maintainability cannot be accepted merely on
the ground that the Revision Petitioner had no right of hearing before the
Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage and it will not exinguish his right to
invoke the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction, against an allegedly unlawful
and prejudicial order. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is maintainable
before this Court. Accordingly, Question No.A is answered in favour of
the Revision Petitioner.
50.Question No.B: Whether the Magistrate has properly exercised the
jurisdiction vested in it and whether the order dated 25.11.2025, had
__________
Page38 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
considered all the evidence and the materialss available on record and is
sustainable in the eye of law?
51.In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 117, and
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in (1985) 2 SCC
537 , the Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately explained the powers
available to a Magistrate upon receipt of a final report submitted by the police
under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
52.The Magistrate, upon receipt of a final report stating that no offence appears
to have been committed, is empowered to:-
i. Accept the final report and drop the proceedings;
ii. Disagree with the opinion of the police and take cognizance of the
offence, if sufficient grounds are available; or
iii. Direct further investigation by the police in accordance with law.
Thus, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion expressed by the
Investigating Officer. However, the exercise of such judicial discretion must
be supported by reasons and must reflect due consideration of the materials
available on record. The Courts have on multiple occasions clarified that a
Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of a police
station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank.
53.In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 reveals
that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, has not adequately
__________
Page39 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
considered the material documents referred to in the Final Report,
particularly the undertaking dated 24.02.2020 and the acknowledgment dated
25.02.2020, evidencing the return of 1,159 unsigned cheque leaves and other
banking instruments. The Final Report specifically refers to the return of the
said documents to the management of M/s.Artemis on 25.02.2020. However,
the impugned order does not adequately explain why the said
acknowledgment is insufficient to answer the allegation relating to the
alleged continued possession and misuse of the cheque leaves and banking
credentials.
54.Similarly, with regard to the meeting stated to have taken place on
20.02.2020 at Taj Coromandel, Chennai, the impugned order does not
identify any specific fraudulent representation allegedly made by the
Revision Petitioner, nor does it explain how the said meeting, by itself,
establishes dishonest intention, entrustment or an agreement to commit an
offence.
55.The Final Report also refers to the issuance of summons to the 2nd
Respondent/defacto complainant and her alleged non-appearance on
subsequent occasions. The impugned order has not adequately considered the
said aspect or the materials relating to the examination of the complainant
during the investigation.
56.The learned Magistrate has also not adequately considered the specific
findings in the Final Report regarding the absence of any transfer of shares,
__________
Page40 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
directorship or formal transfer of management in favour of the Revision
Petitioner. Further, the investigation did not identify any specific
unauthorised banking transaction conclusively attributable to the Revision
Petitioner, which remained unexplained by the documents collected during
the investigation.
57.With regard to the alleged sale of the Bengaluru property in favour of M/s.
Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited, the Investigating Officer had
collected materials relating to the loan transaction, the bank transfers and the
subsequent conveyance of the property. The impugned order does not
adequately discuss those materials or explain how the alleged coercion or
dishonest intention is attributable to the Revision Petitioner.
58.The finding of the learned Magistrate that the Investigating Officer had not
considered the written undertaking dated 24.02.2020 is contrary to the
materials referred to in the Final Report. Paragraphs 15 and 5 of the Final
Report specifically deal with the said undertaking and the collection of 1,159
unsigned cheque leaves, banking login credentials and the locker key by the
Revision Petitioner on 24.02.2020.
59.The Investigating Officer has further referred to the acknowledgment of
receipt of documents dated 25.02.2020, available in the additional typed set
of papers, which bears the signature of the 2nd Respondent in her capacity as
Director of M/s.Artemis. The said acknowledgment records the receipt of
cheque leaves relating to eight bank accounts, the Coimbatore cash locker
__________
Page41 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
key and the original Fixed Deposit Receipts from the Revision Petitioner on
25.02.2020. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the
evidentiary value and effect of the said acknowledgment before arriving at a
conclusion that the investigation was defective on this aspect.
60.Further, the Investigating Officer had referred to the bank statement relating
to SBI Current Account No.37809633884 and recorded that several of the
cheque leaves allegedly handed over to the Revision Petitioner were
subsequently used by the 2nd Respondent herself for the business
transactions of M/s. Artemis, including vehicle registration, insurance,
statutory payments, salaries and rent.
61.The Final Report also refers to the statement of the former Auditor,
Mr.Alagirisamy, who stated that he had resigned from his position on
01.10.2019 and that the alleged handing over had not taken place in his
presence. These materials were required to be considered together before
arriving at a conclusion regarding the genuineness and effect of the
undertaking dated 24.02.2020.
62.The Investigating Officer had further recorded that the online banking
credentials were made available to the Revision Petitioner only for
monitoring the inflow and outflow of funds in connection with the due
diligence exercise, particularly in view of the financial assistance extended or
facilitated by M/s.DN Energy Private Limited. The document dated
24.02.2020, which has been relied upon by the 2nd Respondent/defacto
__________
Page42 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
complainant, requires the accounts team not to interfere with the banking
operations and future business transactions, without the knowledge of the
new management. However, the existence of such a document, by itself,
cannot conclusively establish that the management of M/s. Artemis had been
transferred to the Revision Petitioner. The Final Report records that the due
diligence exercise was undertaken in connection with a proposed investment
and that no formal acquisition of the company was completed. More
importantly, the Investigating Officer has recorded that no specific banking
transaction involving the use of the said credentials by the Revision
Petitioner, resulting in personal misappropriation, was established during the
investigation.
63.The finding of the learned Magistrate that the Investigating Officer had not
examined the de facto complainant is not supported by the materials placed
before this Court. The statement of the 2nd Respondent under Section 180(3)
of the BNSS was recorded on 21.10.2024, on the date of registration of the
FIR itself. The statements of Sivaganesh and Umamaheswari were also
recorded during the investigation.
64.The Final Report further refers to the issuance of subsequent summons
requiring the 2nd Respondent/ defacto complainant to appear and furnish
further clarification and supporting documents. The Investigating Officer has
recorded that she did not appear in response to the subsequent summons. A
complainant, who has refused to appear before the Investigating Officer,
__________
Page43 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own non-cooperation to contend
that the investigation is defective. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to
have considered the statements already recorded and the subsequent
correspondence, before arriving at a finding that the Investigating Officer had
failed to examine the complainant. The alleged non-cooperation of the
complainant is also a relevant circumstance while assessing the completeness
nd
of the investigation. In any event, the allegations of the 2 Respondent as
contained in her complaint and statements, were examined in detail and the
closure report was rightly filed, considering the entire materials, placed on
record.
65.In the First Information Report, the 2nd Respondent has specifically stated
that she received an Income Tax notice, dated 16.01.2024, addressed to M/s.
Artemis, and another notice dated 13.12.2023, addressed to Sivaganesh. The
2nd Respondent has further stated that, only after receiving the said notices,
she verified the bank account transactions and came to know about the
alleged irregularities. A reading of the First Information Report and the
counter affidavit shows that the allegations against the Revision Petitioner are
a concocted story and created only for the purpose of defending the
proceedings by the IT Department, that too after a belated stage of more than
three years.
nd
66.Paragraph No.30 of the counter affidavit of the 2 Respondent also refers to
the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department under Section 147
__________
Page44 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of
the Financial Year 2020-2021, and the consequential demand notices issued
to M/s. Artemis and Mr. Sivaganesh. It is further stated that a statutory appeal
has been preferred against the said assessment proceedings. The sequence of
events, as reflected in the materials placed before this Court, indicates that the
transactions in question relate to the year 2020, the Income Tax proceedings
were initiated during 2023–2024 and the criminal complaint came to be
lodged on 21.10.2024, after a long gap, which was unexplained.
67.Though the delay in lodging a criminal complaint cannot, by itself, be a
ground for rejecting the allegations, the circumstances leading to the lodging
of the complaint and the explanation offered for such delay are relevant
factors, which require consideration.
68. In ( 2023) 20 SCC 219 (Mohd. Wajid Vs. State of UP) , the Honourable
Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-
“ 36 . At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
37. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
__________
Page45 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage
of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting
the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.
Delay in lodging the FIR
40. The alleged incident is said to have occurred sometime in the year
2021. There is no reference to any date or time of the incident in the
FIR. The allegations are too vague and general. Had it been the case
of prompt registration of the FIR, probably the police might have been
able to recover Rs 2 lakhs from the possession of the accused persons
alleged to have been forcibly taken away from the pocket of the first
informant. The FIR also talks about a document on which the first
informant and his brother were forced to put their signatures. We
wonder, whether the investigating agency was in a position to collect
or recover any such document from the accused persons containing
their signatures in the course of the investigation, more particularly
when the State says that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet
is also ready. In the absence of all this material, how is the State going
to prove its case against the accused persons.“
69.The Final Report further records that a sum of Rs.16,50,00,000/- was
received by Sivaganesh from M/s. K.V. Finance and Investments through
banking channels and that certain amounts were transferred from the account
__________
Page46 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
of M/s.Artemis to the personal accounts of the 2nd Respondent and
Sivaganesh. The Investigating Officer had considered these transactions
along with the relevant banking records and the statements of the persons
concerned. The report also records that the financial assistance was arranged
in connection with the attempts to revive the financial position of
M/s.Artemis. These materials were relevant to determine the nature of the
financial transactions and the alleged involvement of the Revision Petitioner.
However, the impugned order does not contain an adequate discussions on
these aspects.
nd
70.Upon perusal of the application preferred by the 2 Respondent, before the
Trial Court, which is at page 67 of the paper book, this Court finds that the
same suffers from an apparent inconsistency, with regard to the statutory
provisions and the jurisdiction of the court before which it has been
instituted. The application has been described as one under Section 173(8)
and Section 200 of Cr.PC, 1973 (Sections 193(8) and 223 of BNSS).
However, the nature of relief sought therein pertains to further investigation
and submission of a further police report. It is well settled that the process of
further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC (Section 193(8) of
BNSS) is to be undertaken by the investigating agency and the report
pursuant thereto is required to be submitted by the police to the competent
court. Furthermore, a perusal of the contents of the application i.e. paragraph
nd
no.34 and Ground Q, reveals that the 2 Respondent has also described the
__________
Page47 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
aforementioned application, as having been preferred under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023. This invocation is equally misconceived, inasmuch as Section
528 of BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High Court and does not
confer any such inherent jurisdiction upon the learned Judicial Magistrate.
nd
The said provision is, therefore, not invocable before the Trial Court. The 2
Respondent, on the one hand, has invoked the provisions, relating to the
powers of the investigating agency and the Magistrate under the Cr.PC
(BNSS) and on the other hand, has sought to invoke a provision, which
exclusively pertains to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Such an
inconsistent and legally untenable invocation of statutory provisions raises a
fundamental defect in the manner, in which the application has been
instituted. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
application in the form and manner, in which it has been presented, is legally
misconceived and should not have been entertained merely on the basis of the
provisions referred to therein and thus, the impugned order was passed,
without application of mind.
71.It is also relevant to point out that while perusing the order of the learned
Magistrate, it is not clear, under which provision the impugned order, dated
25.11.2025, in which further investigation and to transfer/change the
Investigating Officer, has been passed.
72.The learned Judicial Magistrate appears to have proceeded on the premise
that "Justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done".
__________
Page48 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
While the aforesaid principle undoubtedly constitutes a cardinal tenets of the
administration of justice, it cannot be invoked in isolation or construed to
confer upon a court any authority to act beyond the limits prescribed by law.
It is equally well settled that justice must not only be done and seen to be
done, but must also be done in accordance with the procedure, established by
law. The pursuit of justice cannot be permitted to override statutory
provisions, nor can a laudable objective be used to justify an order, which
lacks the sanction of law.
73.In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing the
impugned order, directing further investigation, has neither identified nor
referred to any specific statutory provisions, under which such direction has
been issued, thereby rendering the exercise of jurisdiction legally
unsustainable. The jurisdiction of a court must emanate from law and not
merely from an abstract perception of what may appear to be just or
equitable. Accordingly, the aforesaid impugned order reinforces the necessity
of ensuring that every judicial action is founded upon lawful authority and
conforms to the procedure prescribed by the legislature.
74.On prudent consideration of the impugned order, the Final Report and the
materials placed before the Court, this Court is of the view that several
material aspects of the investigation have not been adequately considered by
the learned Judicial Magistrate. The failure to consider the acknowledgment
dated 25.02.2020, the statements already recorded, the banking materials and
__________
Page49 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
the other relevant documents has resulted in an incomplete appreciation of
the investigative records. Accordingly, Question No.B is answered in
favour of the Revision Petitioner.
75.Question No.C: Whether the Magistrate, while directing further
investigation, can change the Investigation Officer and direct a new
Investigation Officer, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City
Crime Branch-1, Coimbatore, to conduct further investigtion himself or
to appoint another investigating officer, to conduct further
investigation, without substantiated findings of bias or misconduct,
against the earlier Investigating Officer? and Whether the impugned
order is perverse and without Jurisdiction?
76.The learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, has observed that there was
no material to substantiate the allegations levelled against the original
Investigating Officer. However, while declining to accept the Final Report,
the learned Magistrate erroneously directed the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, City Crime Branch-I, Coimbatore, to conduct further investigation
either personally or through another Investigating Officer appointed by him.
77.In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 ,
the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph no.43 was pleased to observe, as
under:-
“43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the
criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even
“reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation” are
__________
Page50 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The
superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring
investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so
demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this
power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with
great circumspection. ”
78.In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police,
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774 , the Honourable Supreme Court considered
the scope of the power of the Court in relation to further investigation and the
limits governing the exercise of such power. The power to direct further
investigation cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted authority upon
the Magistrate to interfere with the administrative hierarchy of the police
department or to prescribe a particular investigating officer without a legally
sustainable reasons.
79.In Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2001) 7 SCC 536 , the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that
the Magistrate, while exercising the power to direct further investigation
under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot specify a
particular police officer or even an officer of a particular rank to conduct such
investigation. The Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observed in
paragraph No.20, as follows:-
“20. ........ Nonetheless, we are in agreement with the observation of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the Special Judge or
the Magistrate could not direct that a particular police officer or
even an officer of a particular rank should conduct such further
investigation. It is not within the province of the Magistrate while
exercising the power under Section 173(8) to specify any particular
__________
Page51 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
officer to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of
the officer who should conduct such investigation."
80. Thus, the above decision squarely clarifies the limitations on the power of
the Magistrate in prescribing the investigating officer.
81. The Court had, time and again, held that as per the statutory mandate under
Section 156(3) of Cr.PC (Section 175(3) of BNSS), the Magistrate is only
empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the Police Station to conduct
investigation and not any officer of a superior rank. The Magistrate cannot
assume the administrative powers vested in the superior police authorities by
directing a particular officer of a specified rank to undertake the
investigation.
82.In the present case, the learned Magistrate, after observing that there was no
material to substantiate the allegations against the original Investigating
Officer, however, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime
Branch-I, Coimbatore, either to conduct further investigation personally or to
appoint another Investigating Officer. Such a direction is contrary to the
principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in ( 2001) 7 SCC 536
(Hemant Dhasmana Vs. CBI), ( 2013) 5 SCC 762 (Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad
Ali alias Deepak) and Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State through
Inspector of Police, in (2015) 8 SCC 774 , cited supra. The Magistrate could
have directed further investigation inaccordance with law,if sufficient
grounds existed for doing so. However, the Magistrate could not prescribe the
particular officer or even to suggest rank of the officer, who should
__________
Page52 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
undertake such investigation. The absence of any substantiated finding of
bias, misconduct or improper investigation against the original Investigating
Officer further assumes relevance, in considering the propriety of the
impugned direction.
83. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the view that the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, has exceeded the limits of
jurisdiction, while issuing the direction, requiring the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch-I, Coimbatore, to conduct
further investigation personally or to appoint another Investigating Officer.
The said direction is contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in 2001 7 SCC 536 (Hemant Dhasmana Vs. CBI), ( 2013) 5
SCC 762 (Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak) and Chandra Babu
alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police, reported in (2015) 8
SCC 774, cited supra, and is therefore legally unsustainable. Accordingly,
Question No.C is answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner.
84. To sum up, the materials available on record indicate that the Revision
Petitioner was not the employee of the Company of the defacto complainant,
namely, M/s. Artemis Auto India Private Limited and that he was engaged in
connection with the “due diligence” exercise relating to M/s. Artemis Auto
India Private Limited by M/s. DN Energy Private Limited. The said
engagement commenced in February 2020 and continued until July 2020, in
connection with the proposed investment in the company. The Revision
__________
Page53 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
Petitioner neither had any control over the Company of the defacto
complainant nor he had any transaction nor he had the control of the
administration of the defacto complainant Company, as per the final report,
submitted by the investigating officer, dated 20.06.2025.
85.The Final Report records that the proposed investment did not materialise
and that the due diligence exercise was concluded after the preparation of the
report in July 2020. The Investigating Officer had considered the financial
transactions, the loan arrangements, the banking records, the documents
relating to the Bengaluru property and the statements of the persons
concerned. It is also relevant to observe that the criminal complaint came to
be lodged on 21.10.2024, whereas the transactions complained of primarily
relate to the period commencing from January 2020. The circumstances
surrounding the delay, including the subsequent Income Tax proceedings,
have also been referred to in the investigative materials.
86. From July 2020 onwards, till the lodging of the First Information Report, the
defacto complainant kept silence and did not take any action or made any
complaint against the Revision Petitioner. Only after receiving the income tax
notice from the IT Department in the month of January 2024, the defacto
complainant had filed the complaint against the Revision Petitioner, after
lapse of more than three years, which is highly time barred. The entire case
set up by the defacto complainant was an after thought, only with an intention
to falsely implicate the defacto complainant.
__________
Page54 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
87.On an overall consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this
Court finds that the Investigating Officer had undertaken the investigation
into the allegations contained in the First Information Report and had
collected documentary evidence and recorded the statements of the persons
concerned before arriving at the conclusion that the allegations were not
substantiated and found that no case is made out against the the Revision
Petitioner and that the entire allegations levelled against the Revision
Petitioner, by the defacto complainant are false and with an intention to
falsely implicate the Revision Petitioner in this case.
88.In this case, the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, while declining to
accept the Final Report, has not adequately considered the above material
aspects. Further, the direction issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
City Crime Branch-I, Coimbatore, to conduct further investigation personally
or to appoint another Investigating Officer is contrary to the principles laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court, as stated above. The Judicial
Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, has exceeded its jurisdiction, while passing
the impugned order. Thus, the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore is not
justified in passing the impugned order, dated 25.11.2025, for the reasons
and discussions, as stated above. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-
consideration of relevant materials and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction,
in prescribing the different investigating officer/superior officer. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set
__________
Page55 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
aside.
89.In the result, in view of the foregoing discussions, the reasons stated above
and in the light of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court
in the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order dated 25.11.2025, suffers from material irregularities and is
not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
allowed . The impugned order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.10289 of 2025 in
FIR.No.66 of 2024, is hereby set aside .
90.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police,City Crime Branch -I, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras
__________
Page56 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )

2026:MHC:4547
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRL RC No. 2337 of 2026
12-11-2026
__________
Page57 of 57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:53:39 am )