Disposed¶33

Praveen Kumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Madras HC30 Mar 2026CRL OP/7925/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST consultant no-harassment petition; Section 528 BNSS; non-remittance of deducted GST from 2018; M/s.Annai Security Service; demand notice Rs.26.9 lakhs; misappropriation and cheating complaint; summons appearance 16.03.2026; Rs.97,000/- paid with undertaking to pay balance; direction to co-operate with pending police enquiry; District Crime Branch Thiruvallur; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No blanket anti-harassment direction; petitioner directed to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with the pending enquiry, with the respondent police to take appropriate action in accordance with law. ¶33

Praveen Kumar Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction that the respondent police not harass him except by following due process of law.

¶17

Court's answer

The Court took the view that the case involves misappropriation in payment of tax, noting that the petitioner had appeared pursuant to summons, paid a sum of Rs.97,000/- and given an undertaking to pay the remaining amount.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In view of the pending enquiry, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with the enquiry, and the respondent police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by Praveen Kumar, a GST consultant who had been filing returns for M/s.Annai Security Service (Proprietor Mr.Thirumalai, Thiruvallur District) from 2018, seeking a direction that the respondent police (District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur District) not harass him except by following due process of law. Prosecution case: GST amounts deducted and reflected as paid to the Government were not actually remitted from 2018; the de facto complainant received a demand notice for Rs.26.9 lakhs, and enquiry disclosed misappropriation and cheating, leading to a complaint. Counsel submitted that on summons to appear on 16.03.2026 the petitioner appeared, admitted his mistake and paid Rs.97,000/-, undertaking to pay the remaining amount. Holding that the case involves misappropriation in payment of tax, M. Nirmal Kumar J. disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with the pending enquiry, and that the respondent police take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

CRL OP No. 7925 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 7925 of 2026

Praveen Kumar

Petitioner(s)

State Rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner except due process of law and to pass such further or other order as this Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkatesan For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

CRL OP No. 7925 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner except by following due process of law.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a GST consultant, who has been filing returns for M/s.Annai Security Service, Proprietor of Mr.Thirumalai of Thiruvallur District, from the year 2018. It is alleged that the petitioner had deducted GST amounts and reflected in the accounts of the de facto complainant that the same has been paid to the Government without any default. However, it subsequently came to light that there was improper payment from the year 2018, inasmuch as the amount shown as deducted were not actually remitted towards GST.

¶19

Thereafter, the de facto complainant received a demand notice from the Authority concerned, directing to pay a sum of Rs.26.9 lakhs. Upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had not remitted the GST amount as projected, thereby disclosing a clear case of misappropriation and cheating, and hence the complaint was lodged.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

CRL OP No. 7925 of 2026

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, based on the complaint, the respondent police issued summons to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to appear on 16.03.2026. The petitioner appeared before the

¶24

respondent police, and admitted his mistake and paid a sum of Rs.97,000/-.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶26

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the case involves misappropriation in payment of tax. The petitioner has appeared pursuant to summons and paid a sum of Rs.97,000/- and has given an undertaking to pay the remaining amount.

¶27