Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Alleged Release Of 82 Containers Without Original Bills Of Lading In ₹15-Crore Cargo Case

In brief

The question

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation, or instead justified quashing the FIR against the petitioners

The court held

The Court declined to quash Crime No. 98 of 2025 and dismissed all six criminal original petitions.

It also directed

It directed no separate relief, leaving the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law and determine the respective roles of the accused.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that 90 containers of PVC resin, worth approximately ₹15 crore, were shipped from China to Tamil Nadu.

¶ 3–6

The original bills of lading allegedly remained with the shipper because the importers had not paid for the goods.

¶ 3–6

The complaint alleged that the cargo was nevertheless released without the original bills of lading or valid delivery orders, through forged or fabricated documents and a conspiracy involving carrier, CFS and importer personnel.

¶ 3–6

The police registered Crime No. 98 of 2025 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1–2, 7–8

The petitioners, arrayed as accused, sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, disputing their involvement and characterising the dispute as civil.

¶ 1–2, 7–8

02Issues

i.Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation, or instead justified quashing the FIR against the petitioners

¶ 9–13

ii.Whether the petitioners’ arguments concerning their lack of involvement, absence of criminal intent and the civil nature of the dispute could be determined at the FIR-quashing stage

¶ 10–13

03Law Applied

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

At the FIR-quashing stage, the Court considers whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence; it does not conduct a trial or decide disputed facts.

In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, the Supreme Court held that proceedings should not be stifled where the allegations prima facie disclose the offence, and that an apparently civil character alone is not a ground for quashing.

¶ 11

In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court reiterated that quashing is exceptional, an FIR need not contain every evidentiary detail, and courts should ordinarily allow an ongoing investigation to proceed where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318 Section 61

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court considered the allegation that the cargo was released without the required delivery orders and original bills of lading, together with the alleged conspiracy and individual roles attributed to the accused.

¶ 9–10

It also noted SICAL’s email acknowledging that the cargo had been released erroneously without the original documents.

¶ 9–10

The petitioners’ claims that they were uninvolved, lacked criminal intent, or were implicated in a civil dispute required assessment of evidence and could not be resolved on a quashing petition.

¶ 10, 13

Because the allegations, considered as a whole, prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the Court held that investigation should continue.

¶ 10, 13