Dismissed¶36

Cleena Creator v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2025CRL RC/730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; discharge petition upheld; cheating allegations re overseas employment/manpower consultancy; Sections 415, 417, 420 IPC; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement; charges framed 08.08.2024; Sections 438 and 442 BNSS 2023; XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet; Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024; C.C.No.951 of 2024; Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- alleged receipts; trial to be completed within twelve weeks; High Court of Judicature at Madras; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; 13.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶36

Cleena Creator Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.02.2025 of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, dismissing the petitioners' discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024, suffers from any infirmity or illegality warranting its being set aside. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Since the Trial Court had already framed charges under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC on 08.08.2024 and the preliminary questioning of the accused was completed, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the statement of the second respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that there are sufficient materials to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC.

¶31

Key takeaways

This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024, and accordingly dismisses the Criminal Revision Case.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025, decided 13.06.2025: Dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Cleena Creator and Anitha Creator challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024, dismissing their petition for discharge from all charges. The petitioners stood charged under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC on allegations of obtaining money (including Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/-) through false representations of overseas manpower consultancy and promised employment abroad; counsel for the petitioners contended the dispute was civil in nature. The Court held that the second respondent's statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. revealed sufficient materials to frame charges; charges had already been framed on 08.08.2024 and preliminary questioning completed. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the Court upheld the dismissal and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.10804 of 2025

¶7

1.Cleena Creator 2.Anitha Creator

. ... Petitioners

1. State

Rep by The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velacherry P.S. Chennai.

¶12

2. Thanishka

¶13

. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.no.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024, dated 13.02.2025, dismissing the petition to discharge the petitioners from all the charges levelled against them in C.C.No.951 of 2024 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.F.Wellington

¶16

For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025

¶20

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order

¶21

dated 13.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024, thereby dismissing the petition seeking discharge the petitioners from all the charges.

¶22

2. The petitioners have been charged with the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC, based on the allegation that they were introduced to the second respondent through a family friend, falsely representing themselves as being engaged in overseas manpower consultancy, While being so, they borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the second respondent in order to develop their business. Subsequently, they received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the second respondent along with his passport under the pretext of arranging employment for him in Portugal. Further they also received a huge money from several others on similar promises of overseas employment. However, the petitioners did not repay the amount and also failed to arrange the promised foreign employment.

¶23

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

¶24

that it is only a money transaction between the petitioner and the second respondent and all the allegations are civil in nature. However, the second

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025

¶28

respondent has given a colour of criminality to the dispute by adding the allegations that the petitioners received money under the guise of arranging overseas employment and subsequently lodged a criminal complaint.

¶29

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

¶30

learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

5. A perusal of the statement of the second respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that there are sufficient materials to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC. That apart, the Trial Court had already framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of IPC on 08.08.2024 itself. The preliminary questioning of the accused has also been completed. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners.

¶32

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.14202 of 2024 in C.C.No.951 of 2024. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.730 of 2025

¶36

dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a

¶37

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

13.06.2025