Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman Accused Of Cheating Construction Businessman Of ₹6.25 Crore

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioner warranting continuation of the investigation.

The court held

The Court answered the quashing question against the petitioner, finding no basis to interfere with the investigation at that stage.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed, and the FIR in Crime No. 119 of 2022 was not quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

01Facts

The de facto complainant, a construction-business operator, alleged that the accused promised to arrange a ₹30 crore investment from a Mumbai-based company.

p. 2

They allegedly showed him an original demand draft for ₹9 crore as the first instalment, obtained ₹6.25 crore through two accounts, and later cancelled the draft.

p. 2

The FIR in Crime No. 119 of 2022 was registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

p. 2

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR insofar as it concerned her; the prosecution submitted that the investigation was almost complete.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioner warranting continuation of the investigation.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold when the allegations required further investigation.

pp. 3–6

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles governing quashing of an FIR under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, citing Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s decision in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350.

pp. 4–5

At the threshold, the court does not assess whether the material will ultimately secure a conviction; proceedings may be quashed where the allegations disclose no offence or are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.

pp. 4–5

Relying also on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court reiterated that quashing is exceptional, an FIR need not contain every detail, and courts should not assess the merits of allegations while investigation is ongoing where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 409 Section 420 Section 465 Section 467 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner that, on their face, attracted the alleged offences and required investigation in depth.

p. 4

Applying the principles in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to evaluate the ultimate merits or determine whether the allegations would lead to conviction.

pp. 4–6

It held that the FIR was not required to set out every fact and that the investigating agency should be allowed to investigate the allegations.

pp. 4–6