Refusal to return pledged jewels despite repayment offer prima facie discloses cheating.

The second respondent alleged that she pledged jewellery with the first accused’s pawn brokerage in 2018, paid interest, and went to redeem the jewellery on 5 September 2023 by offering ₹8,00,000 towards principal and interest.

She alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, threatened her and refused to return the jewellery.

Her complaint was registered as Crime No. 10 of 2024 under Section 420 IPC.

The petitioner, arrayed as the second accused, sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, claiming that he was an advocate unconnected with the business and had been implicated because he was assisting the first accused in legal proceedings.

The petitioner’s documents and a complaint he had made to the Commissioner of Police stated that, after his father’s death, he exercised administrative control over the pawn brokerage jointly run by his father and the first accused.

1. Whether the FIR against the petitioner disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC warranting continuation of the investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner had established grounds for quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, but the Court relied on *Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra* for the principle that this power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection; ordinarily, courts should not assess the merits of disputed allegations or prematurely halt an investigation.

The FIR alleged an offence under Section 420 IPC, which the Court considered on a prima facie basis.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he was merely providing legal assistance and had no connection with the pawn business.

It relied on his own complaint to the Commissioner of Police, which described his role in the business’s administration after his father’s death, and noted that this account conflicted with his assertion that he practised only in Sivagangai and was unconnected with the Madurai business.

Accepting the complaint’s allegation that the petitioner was among those who threatened the second respondent and refused to return her jewellery when she offered repayment, the Court found a prima facie case for investigation under Section 420 IPC.

It treated the dispute over whether the pledged jewellery was genuine as a matter for investigation, not a basis for quashing at that stage.

It directed the first respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No. 10 of 2024 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within three months of receiving the order; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.