Dismissed¶48

Baby Emu Farms India Ltd. v. G.Sekar

Madras HC9 Jan 2026CRL RC/43/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court criminal revision Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026 (decided 09.01.2026, Sunder Mohan, J.) under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. Keywords: Section 319 Cr.P.C. additional accused; Section 5 TNPID Act, 1997; deposit default requirement; knowledge of deposit source insufficient; cheating — separate complaint remedy; Baby EMU Farms India (P) Ltd.; C.C. No. 23 of 2012 Special Court TNPID Act Coimbatore; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Though respondents 1 to 3 had knowledge that the amount paid by the petitioners came from deposits collected from the general public, that knowledge alone is not sufficient to make them guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, 1997. ¶43

Baby Emu Farms India Ltd. Vs G.Sekar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Special Judge rightly dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon respondents 1 to 3 as additional accused in C.C. No. 23 of 2012. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

If the petitioners had been cheated by respondents 1 to 3, it is open to the petitioners to file a separate complaint against them if any cognizable offence had been committed by them.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

¶43

Key takeaways

The offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, 1997 would be made out if there was default in repayment of deposits; respondents 1 to 3 did not collect deposits nor commit default in repayment.ratio¶47
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.12.2025, this Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Madras High Court, Sunder Mohan, J.) — dismissal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused affirmed. Accused in a TNPID Act case (C.C. No. 23 of 2012, Special Court, Coimbatore) sought summoning of respondents 1 to 3 on the plea that Rs.5 crores of depositor money had been paid to them for purchase of colleges which were never transferred. Held: mere knowledge that monies paid originated from public deposits does not attract Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997; that offence requires default in repayment of deposits, which respondents 1 to 3 did not commit; if cheated, petitioners remain free to file a separate complaint for any cognizable offence. Finding no infirmity in the order dated 15.12.2025, revision dismissed and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.332 of 2026

¶9

1.M/s.Baby EMU Farms India (P) Ltd.,

¶10

Rep.by its Managing Director S.Thangadurai.

¶11

2.S.Thangadurai

¶12

S/o. Sennappan, Both are residing at D.No.1/7-16-B2, Oorkownder, Kunjandiyur, Gonur Post, Mettur T.k. Salem – 636 404

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.G.Sekar

President of Vetrivinayagar Engineering College, Mohanur, Namakkal District.

¶17

2.M.Subramaniam

¶18

Secretary, Subramaniam Polytechnic, Mohanur, Namakkal District.

¶19

3. N.Selvakumar

¶20

Treasurer, Salem District.

¶21

1/6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026

¶24

4.State, Rep.by Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing-II Salem District.

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 15.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2025 in C.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajasekar

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R4

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioners’ application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶31

The petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court, TNPID Act, Coimbatore. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had collected huge deposits from the general public promising to repay the same at high interest rates and that thereafter, the petitioners defaulted in payment of principal and the interest amounts.

¶32

2/6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026

¶35

During the course of trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon three other accused, who, according to the petitioners were also guilty of the offence charged against the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that from the money received from the general public, the petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.5crores to respondents 1 to 3 for the purchase of an Engineering College and a Polytechnic College; that respondents 1 to 3 were aware that the said money paid by the petitioners were received as deposits from the general public; that after receiving the said amount of Rs.5 crores, respondents 1 to 3 failed to transfer the Colleges, which they had promised on receipt of money.

¶36

The 4^th respondent Police had filed counter to the petition filed by the petitioner stating that respondents 1 to 3 are not guilty of collection of deposits; that they had not committed any default in repayment of deposits and therefore, they cannot be prosecuted along with the petitioners for the offence under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.

¶37

Learned Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act accepted the submission made by the State and held that if the petitioners had been

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026 cheated by respondents 1 to 3, it is for them to take action against respondents 1 to 3 and they cannot be held liable for the offence charged against the petitioners.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners would, however, submit that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected a sum of Rs. 3 crores from respondents 1 to 3 and therefore, respondents 1 to 3 were aware that the money paid by the petitioners were deposits collected by them and since they failed to honour the commitment, they are also guilty of the offence under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997

¶42

Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶43

Admittedly, respondents 1 to 3 have nothing to do with the affairs of the 1^st petitioner. By an agreement, the 1^st petitioner had transferred Rs.5crores to respondents 1 to 3 on the promise made by respondents 1 to 3 that they would transfer the Engineering College and the Polytechnic College in favour of the 2^nd petitioner. Though respondents 1 to 3 had knowledge that the amount paid by the petitioners was from the deposits by the general public, however, that alone would not be sufficient to make them guilty of the offence under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2026

¶47

Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. The offence would be made out if there was default in repayment of deposits. If the petitioners had been cheated by respondents 1 to 3, it is always open to the petitioners to file a separate complaint against them if any cognizable offence had been committed by them. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶48