Madras HC Refuses To Quash 2017 FIR Over Alleged Tempo Traveller Loan Fraud, Gives Police Four Weeks To File Final Report

The FIR alleged that A1 had obtained a loan of ₹8,40,000 from the second respondent bank to purchase a Tempo Traveller, paid six instalments, and then defaulted.

It further alleged that A1, in collusion with A3 and A4, created forged documents, and that the vehicle was in the possession of A3 and A4.

The petitioner was arrayed as A2.

The police registered Crime No. 163 of 2017 for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 BNSS; the State submitted that investigation was nearly complete and only the final report remained to be filed.

The petition invoked Section 528 BNSS, while the Court referred to the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Under Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, proceedings should not be quashed where the allegations, read as a whole, prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence; a court should not conduct a merits assessment at the threshold.

Under M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, quashing an FIR is an exception, the FIR need not be an encyclopaedia of the alleged offence, and courts should ordinarily permit an ongoing investigation to be completed where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the accused, including the alleged creation of forged documents in connection with the vehicle and loan.

Those allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation.

Applying the principles in Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to assess the merits or determine whether the evidence would ultimately sustain a conviction, noting that the FIR need not set out every detail.

Because the crime dated from 2017 and the State indicated that the investigation was nearly complete, the Court considered a time-bound direction appropriate.

It directed the first respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 163 of 2017 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks of receiving the order, if a final report had not already been filed.