Dismissed¶¶30

Radhakrishnan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC5 Jun 2026CRL RC/1435/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge refusal upheld in criminal revision — bank-loan fraud; Indian Bank Branch Manager (Saidapet) under suspension; conspiracy to sanction loans on forged documents to nonexistent firms; fabricated rental agreement never executed by property owner; wrongful loss Rs.4.56 crores; IPC S.409, S.420, S.468, S.471, S.120B; PC Act 1988 S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d); Cr.P.C S.397 r/w S.401; CBI ACB Chennai Special Public Prosecutor; charge sheet in CC.No.2 of 2021; XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases; materials exist to frame charges; Madras High Court; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.; CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024; decided 05-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

The documents submitted by the borrowers show that the petitioner had knowingly accepted the forged documents and sanctioned the loans. ¶¶25

Radhakrishnan Vs State Rep.by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.07.2024 of the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, dismissing the petitioner's discharge petition (Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2021 in CC.No.2 of 2021), is free from infirmity or illegality such that the Criminal Revision seeking to set it aside should fail. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Since materials are available to frame charges against the petitioner, the trial Court rightly dismissed the discharge petition, and the revisional court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.07.2024.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The documents submitted by the borrowers show that the petitioner had knowingly accepted the forged documents and sanctioned the loans.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioner accepted a fabricated rental agreement purportedly signed between the owner of the property for sanctioning credit facilities to a nonexistent firm, and that rental agreement was never executed by the owner of the rented property.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.), by order dated 05-06-2026 in CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024, dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 23.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2021 in CC.No.2 of 2021 of the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, rejecting the discharge application of Radhakrishnan, then Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Saidapet Branch (presently under suspension). The prosecution case is that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with A1 and other accused to sanction loans to firms on forged documents without verifying the firms' existence, causing wrongful loss of Rs.4.56 crores; the charge sheet invokes Section 409 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 409, 468 read with 471 IPC. Holding that the borrower-submitted documents were crucial to processing and sanctioning, that the petitioner knowingly accepted forged documents and a fabricated rental agreement never executed by the property owner for credit facilities to a nonexistent firm, the Court found materials available to frame charges, upheld the trial Court's dismissal of the discharge petition as free from infirmity or illegality, dismissed the revision, closed the connected Crl.M.P.No.12092 of 2024, and made no costs order.

¶1

CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.12092 of 2024

¶6

Radhakrishnan

¶7

S/o. R.Madheswaran,The Then Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Presently Under Suspension, Flat No.6, 2nd Street, Akbarqabad, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police, Spe/cbi/acb/chennai.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2021 in CC.No.2 of 2021 dated 23.07.2024 on the file of the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Srimathi V.

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

Mr. K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Revision has been preferred as against the petition filed to discharge

¶18

in Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2021 in CC.No.2 of 2021 dated 23.07.2024 on the file of

¶19

the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.

¶20

Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a

¶24

Branch Manager at Indian Bank, Saidapet Branch and he entered into criminal conspiracy with A1 and other accused sanctions loans to the firms based on the forged documents and without verifying the existence of the firms as per the laid down procedure. It was further alleged that the borrowers did not repay the loan within the stipulated time and fraudulently misappropriated the funds without doing any business thereby making the loans fall into non-performing assents and thus cheated the bank and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.4.56 crores. In pursuance to the said complaint, respondent registered FIR and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court for the offence under Section 409 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 120 B of IPC read with Section 420, 409, 468 read with Section 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

¶25

It is seen that, documents submitted by the borrowers in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with the petitioner are very crucial in the processing and sanctioning of the loans. Those documents clearly shows that the petitioner had knowingly accepted the forged documents and sanctioned the loans. Further, petitioner also accepted the fabricated rental agreement purportedly signed

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRL RC No. 1435 of 2024

¶29

between the owner of the property for sanctioning credit facilities to a nonexistent firm and the said rental agreement was never executed by the owner of the rented property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are materials available to frame charges as against the petitioner and hence the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition for discharge and this Court finds not infirmity or illegality in the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5511 of 2021 in CC.No.2 of 2021 dated 23.07.2024.

¶30