M.Arul Kumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police

the entire records connected to the summons dated Nil issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 173(3) of BNSS in connection with complaint C.No.490/SPGP/DCB/Cud/25 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr. R.A. Pradeep For Respondents: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records

¶16

connected with the summons dated Nil issued by the respondent No.1 under

¶17

Section 173(3) of BNSS, in connection with complaint C.No.490/SPGP/DCB/Cud/25 and to quash the same.

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 7136 of 2026

¶21

2. The petitioner, who is the Regional Manager of Kosamattam Finance Limited, has filed this petition objecting to the issuance of summons by the 1 st respondent under Section 173 (3) BNSS for the purpose of a preliminary enquiry.

¶22

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had already appeared before the 1 st respondent on three occasions, submitted the required documents, and answered all the queries raised. However, for reasons best known to the 1 st respondent, the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed. It is further submitted that Section 173(3) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the summons.

¶23

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that one Bhagyalakshmi lodged a complaint stating that blank signed papers had been collected from her by Kosamattam Finance Limited and had not been returned. Hence, the complaint was lodged. During the enquiry, it was found that Bhagyalakshmi used to pledge jewels with Kosamattam Finance Limited. At that time, one Veerachandran and Lakshminarasimhan were incharge of the branch. They became acquainted, and at the request of Veerachandran, to achieve targets, Bhagyalakshmi brought her relatives, pledged jewels and later redeemed the same.

¶24

4.1. During an inspection by the company, it was found that there was no

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 7136 of 2026

¶28

proper accounting for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs and that misappropriation had been committed by Veerachandran and Lakshminarasimhan. Hence, a complaint was

¶29

lodged and the enquiry is in progress. For the purpose to ascertaining the claim

¶30

of Bhagyalakshmi, identifying her relatives, verifying the jewels, and determining the relevant period, certain documents were required and summons were issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner had earlier appeared, he had promised to submit the documents but failed to do so. Hence, the summons were issued.

¶31

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that

¶32

the petitioner would appear before the 1 st respondent on 30.03.2026 along with all available documents.

¶33

6. Recording the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶34

7. It is made clear that the 1 st respondent shall collect all the required

¶35

documents and shall not repeatedly call the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶36

23-03-2026