CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH

COURT

Reserved on : 22.09.2026

Delivered On : 01.10.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN

CRL OP(MD) No. 4291 of 2024

{CNR: HCMD010284622024} Case

QR

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3392 of 2024

Sundarapandian,

S/o K.R.Muruganandham,

No.26/11, Ram Nagar,

Sivagangai. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

K.Pudur Police Station,

Madurai,

Cr.No.10/2024.

2. Geetha,

W/o Natarajan,

D.No.42, Muniyandi Kovil Street,

Jawaharpuram,

K.Pudur,Madurai. ... Respondents

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vinoharan

For Respondents : Mr. C.Susikumar,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R1

: Mr.S. Suresh Manickam for R2

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceeding of the FIR

in Crime No.10 of 2024 dated 12.01.2024 on the file of 1

st

respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is

concerned.

O R D E R

Out of three accused in Crime No.629 of 2017 dated

12.01.2024 on the file of the first respondent, the second accused is

before this Court in this quash petition, to quash the said F.I.R.

2.Bare facts as per the prosecution is as that the first

accused owns Pawn shop. The second respondent pledged her jewels

in the year 2018 for her daughter’s marriage and obtained a sum of

Rs.4,54,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand only). The

second respondent regularly paying interest for the said principal

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

amount. She further alleged that on 05.09.2023, she went to the shop

of the first accused to redeem the jewels by paying a sum of Rs.

8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards the principal and

interest, but the accused persons instead of returning the jewels,

started to threaten the second respondent and abused her and stated

that they would not return her Jewels. Therefore, she filed a

complaint before the first respondent, which was registered in

CrimeNo.10 of 2024.

3.The petitioner's case is as that he is a practicing

Advocate at Sivagangai and he is no way connected with the alleged

offences. The petitioner is the relative of one Murugaiah / first

accused and he is helping him legally in the above dispute by

rendering service as an Advocate. The second respondent with an

evil intention has dragged the petitioner in the above complaint to

stop the petitioner from rendering his service. The petitioner is no

way connected with the affairs of the first accused’s business. The

petitioner’s father, viz., Mr.K.R.Muruganandham, was once a

Partner with the first accused and presently he is no more. The third

accused, viz., Perumal was working as an Accountant in the shop of

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

the first accused. The third accused in collusion with the second

respondent has filed the F.I.R. The third accused stolen the jewels

from the first accused and colluded with the second respondent.

Hence, the first accused filed a complaint before the first respondent

as well as before the Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. The second respondent admitted before the first respondent

police that she has pledged the fake jewels and she will return the

money in few days and the same was recorded in writing before the

first respondent police. The petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate

helping the first accused to proceed legally. The second respondent,

with an intention to restrict the service of the petitioner, filed the

F.I.R in including the petitioner as an accused. It is an abuse of

process of law. The petitioner is practicing at Sivaganga and the

alleged occurrence took place at Madurai. The petitioner played no

other role except helping the first sccused in legal proceedings. Even

then the complaint on face of it would not make out any criminal

offence. There is no criminality either by cheating or otherwise the

FIR is only to harass the petitioner at the influence of high officials.

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

4.The grounds raised in the petition is as that:

(i) The F.I.R was filed on baseless and vague allegations:

(ii) To attract the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C, there

must have been deception at the very inception of the contract. In the

F.I.R, there is no contract between the petitioner and the second

respondent;

(iii) The petitioner has no concerns about the first accused's

business and he has no role in the alleged occurrence;

(iv) There is no specific overt act against the petitioner; and

(v) Therefore, the F.I.R is to be quashed.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Considered the

submissions raised by both sides.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the quash

petition is liable to be allowed or not?

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the

petitioner being an Advocate, has been wrongly roped in and he is

no way connected with the business. Though there was a business

transaction between the second respondent and the first accused, in

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

which the third accused and the second respondent colluded with

each other to cause loss to the first accused. The petitioner was only

helping the first accused in his legal proceedings for preferring a

complaint and taking the case forward, and the second respondent

roped in the petitioner. Therefore, this quash petition is to be

allowed.

8.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court Full Bench decision in

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021, in

which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on considering the earlier

decisions in large number and culled out the principles emerged

therein, holding that quashing power should to be exercised

sparingly, with circumspection and it has been observed in the rarest

of rare cases and the Court should not go into the merits and

demerits of the allegations and the police must be permitted to

complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the

conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint / F.I.R. does not

deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

law. After investigation, the investigating agency finds that there is

no substance in the complaint made by the complainant, the

investigating officer may file an appropriate report before the

Judicial Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted

that the second respondent pledged the jewels with the first accused

in the year 2018. She is not aware of the relationship between the

second accused's father and his brother Murugaiah and she went to

the first accused office on 05.09.2023 to redeem the jewels. At that

time, all the three accused in the F.IR has threatened the second

respondent by abusive words and told that they would not return the

jewels, thereby, Section 420 of I.P.C is attracted. Therefore, the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. The second respondent set the criminal law in motion by

filing a complaint on 12.01.2024, pursuant to which a case was

registered as Crime No. 10 of 2024 under Section 420 of I.P.C..

There are three accused and the petitioner is arrayed as the second

accused. As per the F.I.R, which has been extracted in the preceding

paras, the second respondent pledged her jewels to the first accused

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

and obtained a sum of Rs.4,54,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four

Thousand only) for her daughter’s marriage. She also paid interest

then and there. When she went to the first accused's shop on

05.09.2023, to redeem the jewels by paying Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees

Eight Lakhs only) towards the principal and interest, the accused

persons 1 to 3 threatened the second respondent and abused her

stating that they would not return her jewels. Thereby pownee was

cheated by pawner, that is the first accused and other co-accused/ A2

and A3, she filed an first information, which is attracted under

Section 420 of I.P.C and the same was registered in Crime No.10 of

2024 on 12.01.2024 at the first respondent office.

11.The case of the petitioner, who is the second accused, is

that he is a practicing Advocate before the Courts, wherein in the

petition, he stated that he is a practicing Advocate at Sivagangai and

he is no way connected with the alleged offence. Further he also

stated the alleged occurrence took place at Madurai, wherein he is

practicing in Sivagangai. Therefore, the case against the petitioner is

false one. The petitioner also filed certain documents, which is also

verified to consider whether the fact that the petitioner is an

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

Advocate in Sivagangai or before the Madurai Bench of Madaras

High Court and the District Court, Madurai. The quash petition has

been filed by the petitioner counsel on 11.03.2024, in which the

petitioner has given vakalat to the advocate on 10.03.2024.

12.On perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the

petitioner, it reveals that the first accused has given complaint to the

first respondent against the third accused/Perumal, Ponnalagu,

Meyyappan and the second respondent / Geetha on 05.09.2023 that

the second respondent herein, who was the fourth respondent in that

complaint has pledged with duplicate jewels. The third accused /

Perumal and the second respondent in this case has given a

statement on 05.09.2023 before the first respondent, wherein, the

third accused stated that the second respondent has given a duplicate

jewels, in which, the third accused agreed that the third accused and

the second respondent would settle the amount of Rs.19,00,000/-

(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) to the first accused.

13.The statement of the second respondent dated

05.09.2023 reveals that she also admitted that she would return the

money to the first accused, wherein the version of the third accused

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

that she had pledged the duplicate jewels. These two statements of

the third accused and the second respondent is a computer printed

version of clear copy but there is no signature of the person. To

compare the printed version copy, there is no document attached in

this case that the third accused and the second respondent has given

such statement by executing that letters. Further the first accused

filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, in

Crl.M.P.No.74 of 2024 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the

third accused and the second respondent for the offences under

Sections 294(b), 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.

14.Further, the records attached to the typed set of papers

reveal that the first respondent police submitted a report before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai, in Crl.M.P. No. 74 of

2024, dated 03.01.2024, stating that the complaint lodged by the

second respondent had been registered as Crime No. 10 of 2024

under Section 420 of I.P.C. The said report further discloses that the

third accused and the second respondent had given statements before

the first respondent police, wherein they stated that the first accused

and others had obtained their signatures under threat of dire

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

consequences and that both the third accused that the second

respondent had agreed to settle the amount payable to the first

accused.

15.Further documents attached in the petition reveals that

the second accused, who is an Advocate sent a complaint to the

Commissioner of Police, Madurai, in which the petitioner / second

accused given his address is as No.6, Law Chamber, District Court

Complex, Madurai – 20. The petitioner stated that he has been

practicing before the District Court, Madurai and Madurai Bench of

Madras High Court since 24 years. He made certain allegations

against the police officials, wherein, the police officials demanded

money to file a case as against the second respondent, otherwise they

would not file a case.

16.His complaint reveals that his father

K.R.Muruganandham was a former Government Advocate and

former Member of Legislative Assembly. The petitioner's paternal

uncle Murugaiah/A1 and his father K.R. Muruganandham started

pawn broker business as Partners at Door No.14, Ganapathy Servai

Street, K.Pudur, Madurai City, in the name and style of “Tiruppathi

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

Pawn Brokers”. After the petitioner's father died on 21.10.2021, the

petitioner is taking the administrative control over the said

“Tiruppathi Pawn Brokers”. The petitioner and the first accused

decided to close the pawn broker shop. At that time, the third

accused, who was working as the Cashier and was in charge of the

said pawn broker shop, allegedly colluded with the second

respondent and pledged duplicate jewels, thereby looting and

causing loss of the petitioner's money. Aggrieved by the said acts,

the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of

Police, Madurai. When the petitioner appeared before the local

police at first respondent, they demanded money of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as bribe. Therefore, filed a complaint

before the Commissioner of Police. The said complaint was given

on 05.03.2024.

17. As per the petitioner's complaint given on 05.03.2024,

reveals that his father Muruganandham and his paternal uncle

Murugaiah / A1 were running pawn broker shop as Partners and

after his father demise, he is taking care of the administrative control

of the pawn shop. That complaint to the Commissioner of Police

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

reveals that he is a practicing Advocate before the District Court,

Madurai and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Contrary to

the 05.03.2024 complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai,

in the quash petition, he is averred that he is a practicing Advocate

before the Sivagangai District and he is no way connected to the

Madurai. The said statement cannot be acceptable, wherein the

petitioner given Sivagangai address at No.26/11, Ram Nagar,

Sivagangai and the quash petition was signed and filed before this

Court on 11.03.2024, whereas the earlier complaint dated

05.03.2024 was given before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai

that the petitioner stated that he has been running his office at No.6,

Law Chamber, District Court Complex, Madurai – 20, which is

earlier one and both the statements are contrary to each other.

18.This Court is of the firm view that the complaint dated

05.03.2024 before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, in which,

the petitioner has stated that he is practising as an Advocate before

the District Court of Madurai and the Madurai Bench of the Madras

High Court and that he is having his law chamber at the District

Court Complex, Madurai. However, the records would disclose that

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

the petitioner has also been practising before the Sivagangai Court

and is residing at Sivagangai. Therefore, the petitioner appears to

have made a false statement regarding his place of practice and

residence for the purpose of maintaining the present quash petition.

19.The grounds raised by the petitioner in the quash petition

is as that he is no way connected to the “Tiruppathi Pawn Brokers”,

wherein only the first accused is running and the petitioner is

helping the first accused on his legal issue. But, the petitioner's

complaint dated 05.03.2024 given before the Commissioner of

Police reveals that the said “Tiruppathi Pawn Brokers ” business was

running by the petitioner's father K.R. Muruganandham, who was

the former Government Advocate and former Member of Legislative

Assembly along with his own brother Murugaiah/ A1 for the past 24

years as Partners. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the

petitioner is taking care of the administrative control of “Tiruppathi

Pawn Broker” along with his paternal uncle Murugaiah.

20.The petitioner has stated that his father is a shareholder

in “Tiruppathi Pawn Broker” and that, as admitted in the complaint

dated 05.03.2024, he was taking care of the administrative affairs

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

and management of the said business. During the course of such

management, it was allegedly found that the third accused/Perumal,

had colluded with the second respondent, pledged duplicate and

forged jewels, and thereby caused financial loss to “Tiruppathi Pawn

Broker”. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the

police. However, it is alleged that the police demanded money from

the petitioner for registering the complaint against the third accused

and the second respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner

has no manner of connection whatsoever with the alleged

transactions or the acts attributed to the third accused and the second

respondent. Hence, the complaint lodged against the petitioner is

devoid of any factual or legal basis and does not disclose his

involvement in the alleged occurrence.

21. The case against the petitioner is that the second

respondent went to the pawn broker shop on 05.09.2023 to redeem

here jewels, at that time, all the accused abused her and threatened

her and stated that they would not return her jewels when she was

ready to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards the

principal and interest. When the pawn transaction was found to have

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

been fraudulently dealt with by the pawner, the petitioner, who was

also attending to the day-to-day administrative affairs of “Tiruppati

Pawn Broker”, after demise of his father, the petitioner continued to

look into the affairs of the said pawn broker business. It is further

stated in the complaint that all the accused threatened the second

respondent and told that they would not return her jewels. It

amounts to a matter beyond the relationship between the pawnee and

the pawnor, as they could not redeem her jewels even after paying

the amount.

22.The petitioner stated that the third accused colluded with

the second respondent and in this regard they have filed a complaint

before the police authority, which is pending. Whether the second

respondent has pledged the original jewels or forged one is not a

matter in this case. When the pawnee urged the powner to return the

borrowal amount and redeem the jewels, naturally, the pawner

would have returned the jewels to pawnee upon receiving the

money. Having not been in a position to return the jewels, it

amounts to cheating in prima facie. Therefore, the grounds raised by

the petitioner that he is no way connected with this case, and he is

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

only helping the first accused on his legal issue cannot be accepted

that the second respondent roped the petitioner which is an invented

ground to try to escape from the clutches of law. The petitioner

being an Advocate, taking care of his father's business, after his

demise, he is also responsible for the alleged offence stated in the

F.I.R.

23.In view of the above factual aspects admitted by the

petitioner, based that typed set of paper, it is concluded that the

petitioner is doing pawn broker business with his paternal uncle

first accused. As per the information submitted by the second

respondent that all the three accused persons in the Pawn Broker

shop found on 05.03.2023, when she was ready to return the money

to redeem the jewels, all the accused threatened and told that they

would not return the jewel. Therefore, prima facie, an offence under

Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out, subject to the result of the

investigation. Therefore, all the grounds are baseless and devoid of

merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered

against the petitioner.

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

24.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

The first respondent is directed to expedite the investigation in

Crime No.10 of 2024 and file a final report before the jurisdictional

Magistrate Court within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Index:Yes/No 01.10.2026

NCC:Yes/No

LS

TO

1. The Inspector of Police,

K.Pudur Police Station,

Madurai,

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP(MD). No.4291 of 2024

DR. P.MURUGAN,J.

LS

Pre- delivery order made in

CRL OP(MD) No.4291 of 2024

01.10.2026

19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis