Dismissed¶55

Saifullah v. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2025CRL OP/10690/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR Cr.No.8/2024, District Crime Branch, Erode; petitioner Saifullah as 5th accused; alleged facilitator in sale of misappropriated leather/godown goods to third parties; de facto complainant Annai Fathima Leather Tannery proprietor; stay granted 08.04.2025 stalled nascent-stage investigation; petition dismissed; petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation; single-judge bench, Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira; decision dated 24-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Finding that the investigation into Cr.No.8/2024 was in a very nascent stage and had made no progress owing to the stay granted on 08.04.2025, the court dismissed the Crl.O.P. seeking quashing of the FIR and directed the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation. ¶55

Saifullah Vs The State rep by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶7

Saifullah

¶8

S/o.Ataullah, No.8-10/99-100, S1 D Block, Community Hall Street, 2nd Floor, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode-638 001. Cr.No.8/2024.

¶12

2.A.Gnanapaul S/o.Antonydasan Nadar (Late), AFL Complex, Tannery Street, B.P.Agraharam, Erode-638 005.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

To call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.8/2024

¶16

on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode-638 001.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar M.Prem Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Addl.Public Prosecutor For R1 Mr.R.Chandrasudan For R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Crl.O.P., has been filed praying to call for the records and quash the

¶22

First Information Report in Cr.No.8/2024 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶23

District Crime Branch, Erode-638 001.

¶24

The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant has given a complaint to the

¶25

1st respondent police stating that he is the proprietor of Annai Fathima Leather

¶26

Tannery and doing finished leather products and chemicals business for the past

¶27

35 years and also holding a godown at G.R.Hides India Pvt.Ltd., building complex at Ranipet, for easy exports of finished product to foreign countries. He further stated that he engaged four persons viz., Paramaguru, E.S.Gopi, Jamuna and Thanigaivel Murugesan in the godown. Since he was affected by kidney failure, he underwent kidney transplant operation and at that time, the

¶28

above mentioned four persons along with two other persons collectively along

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶31

with the petitioner herein, had cheated money and had illegally removed the

¶32

goods from the godown and sold them to third parties. The petitioner who is

¶33

arrayed as 5th accused has come up before this court to quash the proceedings.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

¶35

is only a facilitator between the de facto complainant company and one foreign

¶36

company viz., SANDRO Mode SRL, Italy, who is the regular buyer. He would further submit that other four persons facilitated the deal. The petitioner was a facilitator between the de facto complainant and the Italian company and other

¶37

than that, the petitioner has not committed any offence. However, unnecessarily,

¶38

the petitioner's name has been dragged into the issue.

¶39

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

¶40

petitioner was well aware that the other accused have misappropriated the goods

¶41

and he had facilitated contraband being sold to third parties for export. There

¶42

are materials to show that there is active involvement of the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation

¶43

is in nascent stage and if there is a stay, the respondent police will be unable to

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶46

proceed further in the investigation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶47

would submit that since the petitioner had obtained Anticipatory Bail, the

¶48

respondents are unable to proceed further in the investigation.

¶49

Mr.R.Chandrasudan, learned counsel, appeared for the 2nd respondent.

¶50

The allegation against the petitioner is that he contacted the other

¶51

accused and facilitated in sale of misappropriated goods to third parties.

¶52

At the time of admission of the Crl.O.P., stay was granted on

¶53

08.04.2025. Due to the stay of all further proceedings in crime No.8/2024, there is no progress in the investigation. This court finds that the investigation is in

¶54

very nascent stage.

¶55

In view of the above, this Crl.O.P., stands dismissed. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation. If it is found that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence, appropriate action may be taken by the 1st respondent

police.

24-10-2025

nvsri

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

CRL OP No. 10690 of 2025

¶61

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.