criminal law, procedure
0  05 Jan, 2026
Listen in 2:00 mins | Read in 24:00 mins
EN
HI

Venkatramanan & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police & Anr.

  Madras High Court Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025
Link copied!

Case Background

As per case facts, petitioners, acting as land brokers, were accused of criminal conspiracy with company directors, selling company land at a loss and misappropriating funds meant for alternate land ...

Hello! How can I help you? 😊
Disclaimer: We do not store your data.
Document Text Version

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 20.11.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025 and

Crl.M.P.Nos.20300 & 20301 of 2025

1.Venkatramanan

2.Kamalesh Kumar Seth ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State Rep By

The Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch,

EDF-III, Team XXI,

Vepery, Chennai – 600007.

2.M/s.K.R.V. Properties Private Limited,

Authorized Signatory,

Mr.K.S.Kumar,

S/o.P.N.K.Nair,

No.1, 1

st

Floor, Bagirathiammal Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600017. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.4138 of

2020 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Exclusive Trial for

CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

Page No.1 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Balachandran

For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2 : Mr.A.Kripakaran

ORDER

The petitioners/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.4138 of 2020 facing trial for offence

under Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B IPC before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore,

have filed this Quash Petition.

2.Case of the prosecution is that the 2

nd

respondent authorised by

Mr.Dilip Vellodi, Director of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited, lodged a

compliant stating that M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited company

registered under Registrar of Companies in the year 2006 which is involved in

construction activities for residential and commercial buildings, promoting

layouts and in the real estate business. Mr.Muthu Narayanan is the one of the

Director of the Company and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam, a close relative

of said Mr.Muthu Narayanan associated with the Company for looking after

the financial aspects of the Company. The Company was in need of 20 acres

of land parcel in Perumbakkam Village near Pallikaranai and the Company

Page No.2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

authorised Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam to find

out lands and to make payments. Mr.Muthu Narayanan to identify land parcels

brought in Mr.S.Venkataramanan and Mr.Kamalesh Kumar Seth (petitioners),

land brokers to identify and procure land parcels in the said locality.

Thereafter, land to an extent of 19.575 acres extending in various survey

numbers at Perumbakkam Village procured during the period 2006 to 2010.

Out of 19.575 acres, 2.15 acres of land in survey Nos.265/3, 266/4, 297 & 298

purchased by the Company vide sale deed in document Nos.10478 of 2007,

8395 of 2007 and 4469 of 2007, totalling to a sum of Rs.3,48,34,200/- was

sold to third person. Keeping Company in dark, Mr.Muthu Narayanan and

Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the

petitioners and sold 2.15 acres of land to one M/s.Varun Manian Reality &

Constructions Private Limited for a sum of Rs.2,57,00,000/- vide sale deed in

document No.8177 of 2011 and 1752 of 2012. Though the Company

purchased the said land of 2.15 acres for a sum of Rs.3,48,34,200/-, these

properties sold at lesser price showing it as distress sale for Rs.2,57,00,000/-,

thereby, caused wrongful loss of Rs.91,34,200/-. Apart from this transaction,

the petitioners in connivance with Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @

Gopinath Sadasivam received a sum of Rs.1,77,50,000/- and out of

Rs.2,57,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,54,40,000/- was re-routed to the 1

st

petitioner

Page No.3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

by three separate cheques bearing Nos.489635 dated 21.11.2011 for

Rs.1,60,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.489636 dated 08.12.2011 for a sum of

Rs.14,40,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.489637 dated 12.03.2012 for a sum

of Rs.80,000/- through Axis Bank, G.N.Chetty Road projecting that these

amounts would be used for procuring alternate lands in the name of Company.

But thereafter they neither purchased any land nor returned the amount,

thereby, committed misappropriation and cheating to the tune of

Rs.5,23,00,000/-. Hence, on the complaint received on 01.08.2015, FIR in

Crime No.304 of 2015 registered for offence under Sections 406, 408, 420 &

506(i) r/w 120B IPC.

3.On conclusion of investigation, it was found that Mr.Muthu

Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam informed the Directors of

M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited about the transactions with the

petitioners and there was no criminality in their action, hence, both of them

deleted from the case and charge sheet filed against the petitioners alone. It

was also found that Mr.Muthu Narayanan and Mr.Dilip Vellodi were Partners

in Sutherland Global Services, a Company registered in New York, USA and

there was claim and counter claim between them in USA Courts as early as

25.03.2015 and the present compliant lodged five months thereafter on

Page No.4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

01.08.2015. Further it was found that the petitioners having received the

money for sale of 2.15 acres to M/s.Varun Manian Realty & Constructions

Private Limited and undertook to buy alternate site, but failed, hence,

investigation proceeded and charge sheet filed against the petitioners arraying

them as A1 & A2. In the charge sheet, LW1 to LW11 listed along with

documents.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the

complaint and charge sheet in this case would prove that the dispute between

the petitioner and 2

nd

respondent is only civil in nature arising during business

transaction between them. In fact the 2

nd

respondent and the petitioners are

close relatives. There was misunderstanding and dispute between Mr.Muthu

Narayanan and Mr.Dilip Vellodi and case in USA Court initiated. In the

crossfire, finding petitioners are close to one of the rival party against the 2

nd

respondent, they are falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners explained

the modus of business transaction, how the properties purchased and for what

reason 2.15 acres sold, otherwise further loss would have happened, hence, to

avert and minimise the loss, the property sold to M/s.Varun Manian Realty &

Construction Private Limited, collected the money and accounted, further,

alternate site shown to the 2

nd

respondent and it was agreed to proceed with the

Page No.5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

alternate site. On such explanation and production of relevant documents by

the petitioners, the 2

nd

respondent agreed and compromised the issue with the

petitioners. Now, a Joint Compromise Memo dated 21.07.2025 signed by the

2

nd

respondent, Authorized Signatory and the petitioners filed before this

Court. Hence, prays for quashing the case based on the compromise.

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1

st

respondent

Police submitted that the 2

nd

respondent, Authorized Representative of

M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited lodged a complaint on 01.08.2015

stating that the petitioners along with Mr.Muthunarayanan, one of the Director

of the said Company and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sathasivam, a close relative of

Mr.Muthunarayanan, looking into the accounts of the Company, all joined

together during the period 2006-2010 purchased vast track of lands to the

extent of 19.575 acres in Perumbakkam Village, Pallikaranai. Though the

lands were to be purchased in one block, 2.15 acres alone purchased in a far of

place from other lands, hence, the project could not take off as planned. Later

it was agreed that this 2.15 acres to be sold and proportionate land adjacent to

existing property to be purchased. The petitioners/land brokers projected that

this 2.15 acres could not be sold immediately on the same value of purchase

and they informed that the market is on the downslide and any delay would

Page No.6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

cause further loss, hence, as a distress sale with a lesser value to the purchase,

2.15 acres sold, later doubts caused on the sale and reverse flow suspected

between the petitioners and the purchaser of 2.15 acres. The petitioners

received the sale amount, not accounted properly, failed to purchase equivalent

land adjacent to existing property, nor paid back the money, hence, a complaint

lodged by the 2

nd

respondent.

6.He further submitted that during investigation it was found Mr.Muthu

Narayanan and Mr.Gopi @ Gopinath Sadasivam (A1 & A2) informed the

Company at all stage of negotiation and thereafter decision taken to sell 2.15

acres of land. During investigation there was some dispute among the

Directors, earlier to the present complaint already there was case filed between

warring Directors in USA and some motivation prevailed between the

Directors, hence, the names of A1 and A2 in the FIR deleted. As regards the

petitioners, though they claimed that they could purchase equivalent land of

2.15 acres, neither purchased the land nor returned the amount, hence,

investigation concluded and charge sheet filed against the petitioners arraying

them as A1 & A2.

Page No.7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

7.He further submitted that now the petitioners and 2

nd

respondent

entered into a compromise and the 1

st

respondent Police received the

compromise deed and the copy of the same produced before this Court. He

fairly submitted that misappropriation and cheating took place in course of

business transaction. Now the 2

nd

respondent agreed for compromise, the

compromise verified and it was found to be true and genuine.

8.Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen

that the issue between the petitioners and the 2

nd

respondent stems from a

commercial dispute arising out of business transaction between them. Now the

petitioners and 2

nd

respondent resolved the issue, Joint Compromise Memo

dated 21.07.2025 produced before this Court. To confirm the same, this Court

interacted with the signatory to the joint compromise memo namely

Mr.K.S.Kumar, Authorized Signatory/2nd respondent and Mr.Dilip Vellodi and

Mr.Kiran Thomas, Directors of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited who

appeared before this Court. The Directors of M/s.K.R.V Properties Private

Limited confirmed the Joint Compromise and produced the copy of resolution

passed in the board meeting on 15.07.2025 accepting the joint compromise

memo and authorizing withdrawal of the complaint.

Page No.8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

9.Scanned reproduction of the Joint Memo of Compromise dated

21.07.2025 and Resolution dated 15.07.2025 are as follows:

Page No.9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

Page No.10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

Page No.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

Page No.12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

Page No.13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

10.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in

keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are not

compoundable in nature. The offence alleged is private in nature arising out of

business transaction. The Hon'ble Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus

State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 had permitted quashing of

complaint of this nature.

11.In view of the above, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.4138 of 2020 against

the petitioners on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Exclusive Trial for

CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the

terms of Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this Order.

Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.01.2026

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

vv2

Page No.14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

To

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID Cases,

Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch,

EDF-III, Team XXI,

Vepery, Chennai – 600007.

3.The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court.

Page No.15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN

Crl.O.P.No.29794 of 2025

05.01.2026

Page No.16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reference cases

Description

Legal Notes

Add a Note....