M.Kumaresan @ Arjun Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M.Kumaresan @ Arjun Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court dispensed with subject to exceptions (receipt of copies, answering charges, Section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 BNSS questioning, pronouncement of judgment, and other dates as required by the trial Court); connected Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P.No.18777 of 2025) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the final report in C.C.No.1881 of 2020 against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground that the persons shown as the 2nd and 3rd accused in the FIR were not arraigned in the final report. +1 more

Court's answer

Whether the petitioner's act constitutes an offence can be determined only after appreciation of evidence before the trial Court; accordingly, at this stage it is not a fit case to quash the final report.

Ratio / Principle

Determination of whether the petitioner's conduct constitutes an offence is expressly reserved to the trial Court upon appreciation of evidence coming on record.

Key takeaways

Despite dismissal, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 BNSS, pronouncement of judgment, and any other dates required by the trial Court.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 10.10.2025) dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.1881 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore (arising out of Crime No.72 of 2017, CCB-II, Coimbatore City), wherein the petitioner is charged with offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 419 of IPC for allegedly collecting money from several persons under the pretext of running an employment agency on promises of securing jobs. The Court held that whether the petitioner's act constitutes an offence can be seen only after appreciation of evidence before the trial Court and that, at that stage, it was not a fit case to quash the final report; the omission of the persons shown as the 2nd and 3rd accused in the FIR did not warrant quashing. As a concession, the personal appearance of the petitioner was dispensed with except for receipt of copies, answering charges, Section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 BNSS questioning, pronouncement of judgment and other dates required by the trial Court; the connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.18777 of 2025) was closed.

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.18777 of 2025

M.Kumaresan (a) Arjun ... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police CCB-II, Coimbatore City Crime No.72 of 2017

Vijayakumar.N ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records in C.C.No.1881 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Page 1 of 4

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

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.1881 of 2020, for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 419 of IPC, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore, on the ground that the person who actually received the money and who was shown as 3 rd accused in the FIR, has not been shown as an accused in the final report. Further, the 2 nd accused in the FIR, has also not been shown as an accused in the final report.

2. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner under the pretext of running an employment agency, has collected huge amount from various people on the promise of securing jobs in various places and thereafter, cheated them. The statements of the witnesses who paid the money have been recorded which clearly indicate that the petitioner appears to have received huge money.

3. In such view of the matter, whether the act of the petitioner will constitute an offence or not, can be seen only after appreciation of evidence which come on record before the trial Court. At this stage, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the final report.

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Page 2 of 4

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

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

5. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, t he personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 of BNSS and on the date of pronouncing judgment and also on any other dates as may be required by the trial Court.

10.10.2025

ksa-2

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore

The Inspector of Police CCB-II, Coimbatore City Crime No.72 of 2017

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Page 3 of 4

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

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ksa-2

Crl.O.P.No.27672 of 2025

10.10.2025

Page 4 of 4

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