Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Moneylender’s Employee Over Alleged ₹1.07-Crore Demand After ₹2.3 Crore Repaid On ₹1.2 Crore Loan

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation, or should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

The court held

The Court declined to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition.

It also directed

It directed the first respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 202 of 2026 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twelve weeks of receiving the order, if not already filed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 202 of 2026, registered against him for offences under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 351(2), 308(2) and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

p. 1

The complaint alleged that the petitioner, an employee of a licensed moneylender, participated in demanding further payment from the complainant’s husband despite substantial repayments, threatening the couple, and obtaining ₹15 lakh to secure the husband’s release.

p. 2

The petitioner denied the allegations; the prosecution submitted that the investigation was nearly complete.

p. 3

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation, or should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

pp. 1, 3–6

ii.2. Whether the Court should interfere with the ongoing investigation where the allegations against the petitioner required further investigation.

p. 3, 6

03Law Applied

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

pp. 4–5

The Court relied on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, for the principle that proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold where the allegations disclose the ingredients of an offence; the Court should not assess whether the material will ultimately secure a conviction.

pp. 4–5

It also relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which states that quashing an FIR is exceptional, that an FIR need not contain every detail, and that courts should ordinarily allow police to complete an investigation where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 329 Section 296 Section 351 Section 308 Section 127

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner and disclosed a prima facie commission of cognizable offences.

p. 3

Whether the allegations could ultimately be proved was not for determination at the quashing stage; that assessment would require investigation, which the Court considered necessary to examine the allegations in depth.

pp. 3, 5–6

Applying Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to evaluate the merits of the evidence or interrupt the investigation.

pp. 4–6