Madras HC Upholds Cheating Charges Against Account Holder In ₹5.28-Lakh Online-Task Case, Treating “Preliminary” Charge Sheet As Final After Probe Was Declared Complete

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced through WhatsApp and Telegram to transfer money for online tasks.

Of the transferred funds, ₹5,28,000 was credited to an ICICI Bank account in the petitioner’s name, and the account allegedly recorded transactions totalling ₹2,53,54,365 on the relevant dates, followed by transfers to other accounts.

Police filed a “preliminary charge sheet” on 5 December 2024 under Section 193(9) of the BNSS, stating that other alleged participants remained unidentified.

The Magistrate framed charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act on 26 February 2026.

During the revision, the prosecution filed a clarification report stating that the investigation was complete and that the preliminary charge sheet could be treated as the final report because the other accused could not be traced.

The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, including on the grounds that no final report had been filed and that he had neither knowingly participated in the transactions nor retained the funds.

Section 193 BNSS requires a police report on completion of investigation and permits further investigation and a further report; the description given to a report is not, by itself, decisive if the report satisfies the statutory requirements.

At the charge stage, the court may sift the prosecution materials to determine whether they disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and raise a prima facie case or grave suspicion, but should not conduct a trial or finally assess guilt.

State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455; State v. A. Arun Kumar, (2015) 2 SCC 417.

Under Section 420 IPC, the materials must indicate cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property; under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, they must indicate cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource.

The Court also relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, for the principle that revisional interference with a charge order is warranted where there is a patent legal infirmity or the materials, taken at face value, do not disclose the offence.

The Court accepted the prosecution’s clarification that investigation had been completed and held that the 2024 report could be treated as the final report because it was said to satisfy Section 193 BNSS; the fact that it was initially labelled “preliminary,” or that further investigation into other alleged participants had been contemplated, did not by itself invalidate the charge order.

The alleged credit of ₹5,28,000 to an account attributed to the petitioner, the substantial transactions through that account, the onward transfers, and the alleged connection between the account and the petitioner’s mobile number were sufficient at this stage to support proceeding on the charged offences.

The Court treated the petitioner’s claims of lack of knowledge, non-retention of funds, and an earlier cybercrime complaint as matters for assessment against the full prosecution evidence, not as grounds to quash the charges at the preliminary stage.

Finding no basis for revisional interference, it dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the Magistrate’s order framing charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the revision order.