Saravanan, Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Karuppayurani

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.141 of 2018) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Mr.Steephanraj, The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Party, Madurai District. ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.1074 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶13

Page No. 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15138 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petition seeks quashing of the final report filed under Section

¶21

420 of the IPC r/w Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶22

It is alleged in the final report that Accused Nos.2 to 4 were in possession of demonetised Rs.1000 and Rs.500 currency notes, to the tune of Rs.99 Lakhs in a car; and that when questioned by the respondents, they had informed that they were carrying the said notes at the instance of the petitioner, who was arrayed as the first accused.

¶23

Mr.Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶24

that the prosecution had seized the demonetized currency notes from Accused No.2 to 4; that they had cited six witnesses, of which the 5^th and 6^th witnesses are the investigating officers; that the first witness is the Sub

¶25

Page No. 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15138 of 2025

¶28

Inspector of Police, who is the complainant in the FIR; that witnesses 2 to

¶29

4, are mahazaar witnesses and had assisted in the investigation; that therefore, the only material available against the petitioner is the alleged confession said to have been made by the other accused; that it is well settled that prosecution on the basis of such evidence would be a futile exercise, as there is no chance of conviction; that in any case, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC would not be made out and only the offence under Section 7 of the Act, would be made as against the other accused; and that since the said offence is punishable with fine and since it is a non cognizable offence, the respondents would have no jurisdiction to either investigate or file a final report, without the permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions would submit that the only material available against the petitioner is confession of the co-accused; that in any case, the petitioner has to establish that he is not guilty before the trial Court; and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15138 of 2025

¶34

As stated earlier, demonetized currency was not seized from the petitioner. The petitioner was not present when the alleged demonetized currency was seized from accused Nos.2 to 4. The prosecution had not examined any witnesses or produced any material to establish the link between the petitioner and other accused. As stated earlier, the prosecution had cited six witnesses of which LW1-the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR is the complainant and other witnesses LW2 to LW4 are police officials, belonging to the same police station, who had signed as a witness in the mahazar and the investigating officers are cited as LW5 and LW6.

¶35

Therefore, it is clear that apart from the confession of the coaccused, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the seizure of the demonetized currency. The conviction cannot be based on such evidence. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to allow the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial and hence, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned final report insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned.

¶36

____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15138 of 2025

¶39