Woman’s ₹52.5-Lakh Investment On Alleged 14% Monthly Interest Promise: Madras HC Lets Cheating Case Proceed

The petitioners sought to quash C.C. No. 301 of 2025, pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, for alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant invested ₹52,50,000 in the petitioners’ trading company, HNFS, after being promised monthly returns of 14%, but received neither returns nor repayment of the principal.

The judgment refers to the FIR as Crime No. 428 of 2024 in its account of the prosecution case, but elsewhere identifies it as Crime No. 439 of 2024.

The petitioners denied the allegations and sought quashing; the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial had commenced and witnesses had been examined.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to consider a request to quash criminal proceedings; however, the court should not resolve disputed facts or assess the credibility and evidentiary value of witness statements at that stage.

The court referred to Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351, and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686, for the principle that inconsistencies and disputed factual matters are for the trial or appellate court to assess.

It also relied on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, for the principle that a quashing court should consider whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the alleged offences, rather than determine the validity of the evidence.

The final report and witness statements contained specific allegations which, in the court’s view, were sufficient at this stage to attract Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Determining the truth of those allegations would require appreciation of evidence, while the petitioners’ grounds raised disputed questions of fact; those matters were therefore not suitable for resolution under Section 528 BNSS.

The court accordingly declined to assess the defence on its merits and left the petitioners free to raise their grounds before the trial court.

It permitted the second petitioner to be represented by counsel after filing an appropriate application, while requiring her presence for furnishing of copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 BNSS, and pronouncement of judgment.