MR.INDIRAJIT SENGUPTA vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Po
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 15.10.2026
Pronounced on : 28.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
and Crl.MP.Nos.23145 of 2025, 4959, 2920, 3430, 4560 & 4597 of 2026
Crl.OP.No.33143 of 2025
INDIRAJIT SENGUPTA
2.DIPAKKUMAR MANHARLAL MEHTA
3.DEEPAK KRISHNAN TEWARI ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2.B.Subramanyan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P,Giridharan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
Crl.OP.No.4193 of 2026
1.Prasad Vinayak Bapat
2.Fur Lung Hsieh
3.Jiub Ming Lee
4.A.S.Jayaseelan
5.Balaji ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2.B.Subramanyan, ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P,Giridharan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
Crl.OP.No.4778 of 2026
Seshadri Rajappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2.B.Subramanyan, ... Respondents
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
Crl.OP.No.6164 of 2026
K.P.Mohan Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2.B.Subramanyan, ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioner/Accused No.20
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
Crl.OP.No.6225 of 2026
S.Sudharsan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2.B.Subramanyan, ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioner/A21.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
Crl.OP.No.6797 of 2026
Kaliamurthy Rajavel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
2.B.Subramanyan, ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records of the case in the FIR in Cr.No.98 of 2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
for Mr.R.Raghavendran
COMMON ORDER
All the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to
quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 98 of 2025 on the file of the first
respondent, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. The petitioners in Crl.OP.No.33143 of 2025 are arrayed as
A4 to A7. The petitioners in Crl.OP.No.4193 of 2026 are arrayed as A8 to
A12. The petitioner in Crl.OP.No.1778 of 2026 is arrayed as A18. The
petitioner in Crl.OP.No.6164 of 2026 is arrayed as A20. The petitioner in
Crl.OP.No.6225 of 2026 is arrayed as A21. The petitioner in
Crl.OP.No.6797 of 2026 is arrayed as A19. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to pass a common order in all these petitions.
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered an FIR in Crime No. 98 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The substance of the allegations in the
complaint is that 90 containers containing PVC resin, valued at
approximately Rs.15 crores, were shipped by the de facto complainant
from Tianjin Xingang and Qingdao, China, to Kattupalli, Tamil Nadu,
through the carriers, namely, M/s. MSC Agency India Private Limited,
M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Private Limited and M/s. T.S. Lines (India)
Private Limited, which issued the respective bills of lading. The
consignments were imported by M/s. Rishab Triexim LLP and M/s.
Kanchan Polymers on various dates. Upon arrival, the containers were
discharged and transported to the Container Freight Station (hereinafter
referred to as the “CFS”) owned by M/s. Sical Multimodal and Rail
Transport Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SICAL”). According to the
complaint, the prevailing procedure for the release of imported goods
requires the importer to produce the original bill of lading before the
carrier, which, upon verification, issues a delivery order. The delivery
order is thereafter submitted to the CFS for the release of the goods. The
shipper is ordinarily required to release the original bills of lading to the
importer upon receipt of payment for the goods.
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
4. In the present case, the de facto complainant, being the
shipper, had paid the prescribed charges to the respective carriers, which
had consequently issued the bills of lading. The original bills of lading
remained in the possession of the de facto complainant, as the importers
had allegedly failed to pay the value of the goods. It is therefore
contended that, in the absence of the original bills of lading and valid
delivery orders, the consignments could not have been lawfully released
to the importers or any other person. However, the de facto complainant
allegedly subsequently came to know that the consignments had been
released to the importers without production of the original bills of lading
and without valid delivery orders. On the basis of these allegations, it is
alleged that the carriers, shipowners and liners, acting with dishonest
intention and in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, fabricated
documents and receipts and fraudulently procured delivery orders by
deceiving the Customs Department. By resorting to such alleged
fraudulent means, the accused are stated to have facilitated the release of
the consignments, thereby causing wrongful loss to the de facto
complainant in respect of goods valued at approximately Rs.15 crores.
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
5. It is alleged that the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 misused their
official positions and facilitated the fraudulent issuance of delivery orders
in conspiracy with the officials of other carrier companies and the
Container Freight Station (CFS). They allegedly relied upon forged and
fabricated documents to facilitate the unlawful release of the containers,
despite the importers having failed to make payment for the
consignments and the original bills of lading not having been surrendered
by the shipper. The Accused Nos. 5 to 9, who are stated to be directors
and officers of M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Private Limited, allegedly
colluded with the officials of M/s. MSC Agency India Private Limited,
M/s. T.S. Lines (India) Private Limited and the CFS. They are alleged to
have accepted and processed fabricated documents and fraudulently
issued delivery orders without obtaining the original bills of lading,
thereby facilitating the unauthorised clearance and release of the
containers. The Accused Nos. 10 to 14, who are stated to be directors of
M/s. T.S. Lines (India) Private Limited, allegedly participated in the
criminal conspiracy with the officials of the other carrier companies,
fabricated documents relating to customs clearance, and fraudulently
issued delivery orders without verifying the relevant title documents,
thereby enabling the unlawful release of the goods. The Accused Nos. 15
Page 8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
to 18, who are stated to be directors and officers of M/s. Sical Multimodal
and Rail Transport Limited, were allegedly entrusted with the custody of
the imported containers. They are accused of deliberately violating the
prescribed procedure by releasing 82 containers without production of the
original bills of lading or the requisite delivery orders.
6. It is further alleged that they opened eight containers and
permitted the removal of their contents, manipulated the internal records
of the CFS, fabricated acknowledgments, and colluded with the carrier
officials to facilitate the unauthorised delivery of high-value cargo. As
regards Accused Nos. 19 to 21, who are stated to be partners of the
importing entities, it is alleged that they dishonestly forged documents
and fabricated receipts and acknowledgments to mislead the Customs
authorities. They allegedly obtained delivery orders from the carriers
without making payment for the goods and took delivery of 82 containers
without the requisite title documents, thereby conspiring to
misappropriate the consignments and steal the contents of eight
containers. The Accused No. 21 is further alleged to have acted as one of
the importers and conspired with the other importers, forged import-
related documents, and facilitated the release of the containers without
production of the original bills of lading. It is also alleged that Accused
Page 9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
No. 21 participated in the conspiracy, received the allegedly
misappropriated goods, and shared the unlawful gains arising therefrom.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the first respondent registered
the FIR in Crime No. 98 of 2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS). To quash the same the present petitions has been filed.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
Crl.O.P. Nos. 33143 of 2025 and 4193 of 2026 submitted that, as evident
from the respective bills of lading issued by the carriers, the vessel
arrived at Kattupalli Port on 25.04.2025. Upon discharge, all the
containers were transported from the port to the Container Freight Station
(CFS). The consignee was entitled to a detention-free period of 21 days
from the date of arrival of the cargo. However, as the importers failed to
clear the cargo within the stipulated period, detention charges were
levied. He fu rther submitted that, by an email dated 12.09.2025, the
shipper, namely, the de facto complainant, informed the petitioners that
the CFS had released the cargo to the importers without obtaining the
requisite delivery orders. It was contended that the CFS could release the
cargo only upon production of valid delivery orders, which, in turn, could
be issued by the carriers only after the importers surrendered the original
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
bills of lading. The petitioners subsequently received an email dated
13.09.2025 from the CFS, wherein it allegedly acknowledged that the
cargo had been released erroneously without obtaining the original
documents.
7.1. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel
contended that Accused Nos. 4 to 12 had no role in the release of the
goods by the CFS and could not be held responsible for the alleged
unauthorised delivery of the consignments. On the contrary, it was
submitted that the petitioners themselves were victims of the alleged
fraud, as the importers had failed to make payment for the goods supplied
by the shipper. He also submitted that, as per the notice issued by the
Customs authorities, the importers and Customs House Agents (CHAs)
were required to intimate the shipping line regarding their choice of
destination before filing the inward entry. In the present case, the CFS
was selected by the importers. Therefore, it was contended that the
selection of the CFS and the subsequent release of the cargo were matters
beyond the control of Accused Nos. 4 to 12. The learned Senior Counsel
accordingly submitted that the petitioners had neither participated in nor
facilitated the alleged illegal release of the consignments and that the loss
suffered by the shipper arose from the acts of the importers and the CFS,
rather than from any criminal conduct on the part of the petitioners.
Page 11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
Crl.O.P. Nos. 6164, 6225 and 4778 of 2026 submitted that Accused No.
18 (A18) was never a director of the CFS owned by M/s. Sical
Multimodal and Rail Transport Limited (SMART) and, therefore, had no
role in or connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR. It was
further contended that no specific allegations had been made against the
individual directors of SMART and that the allegations were general,
vague and devoid of particulars establishing their individual involvement
in the alleged offences. He further submitted that the registration of the
FIR was nothing but an attempt to give a criminal colour to a dispute that
was essentially civil in nature. It was contended that the containers had
been entrusted to the CFS by the clearing agents of the importers and not
by the shipper. The importers obtained delivery of the containers from the
CFS in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Customs
authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. Under the said procedure,
delivery of the imported goods could be effected only with the requisite
permission of the Customs authorities. In such circumstances, it was
submitted that the petitioners had no direct dealings with the shippers,
liners or carriers and could not be held criminally liable merely on
account of their alleged association with the CFS. The learned Senior
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
Counsel also pointed out that the shippers had already initiated civil
proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of the dispute. On these
grounds, the learned Senior Counsel sought to contend that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners was
unwarranted.
9. Upon perusal of the records and consideration of the
submissions made by the de facto complainant and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, it emerges that, by an email dated 12.09.2025, the de
facto complainant had informed the carriers and liners that the CFS had
released the cargo to the importers without obtaining the requisite
delivery orders. According to the prosecution, the cargo could be released
by SICAL only upon production of valid delivery orders issued by the
respective carriers, which, in turn, could be issued only after the
importers surrendered the original bills of lading. Therefore, all the
accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, colluded with
one another and facilitated the unauthorised release of the cargo without
production of the requisite documents and without payment for the goods
to the shipper. In fact, by an email dated 13.09.2025, the SICAL admitted
that the cargo had been released erroneously without obtaining the
original documents.
Page 13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
10. Therefore, the allegations of conspiracy and the respective
roles attributed to the accused, their individual involvement cannot be
conclusively determined at this stage of the proceedings. The contentions
advanced by the petitioners, including their claims of non-involvement
and the absence of criminal intent, constitute matters of defence that
require consideration in the light of the evidence collected during the
investigation and, if warranted, at trial. This Court, while exercising its
jurisdiction to consider the prayer for quashing the FIR, is not required to
undertake a detailed examination of the disputed facts or to assess the
merits of the rival contentions as though conducting a trial.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.,
( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350
held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning,
is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking
cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out
for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not
required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of
the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
Page 14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a
case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration
for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute
the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be
considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous
analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the
complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed,
there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance
of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering
into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.
Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground
that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the
ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie
made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be
interdicted.
12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions
in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of
Page 15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
Maharashtra & ors. , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to
consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
13. Therefore, the specific allegations levelled against the
petitioners warrant a detailed investigation to ascertain their respective
roles and the extent of their involvement in the alleged offences. It is well
settled that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the entire prosecution case
and need not contain all the details or evidence relating to the alleged
offences. Hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold merely on
the ground that every factual detail has not been set out therein. This
Court finds that the allegations contained in the FIR, when considered as
a whole, disclose, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offences
warranting investigation. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the investigation at this stage. It is for the investigating
agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, collect
the relevant evidence, ascertain the role of each accused and unearth the
truth behind the alleged offences by following the procedure prescribed
under the applicable law.
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is not
inclined to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 98
of 2025. Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
To
1. Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
Crl.OP.Nos.33143 of 2025, 4193,
4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026
28.10.2026
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:49:03 pm )