Vairamani v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER Preface: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.569 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, insofar as the petitioner, who has been arrayed as Accused No.2, is concerned.

¶2The criminal prosecution arises out of a commercial transaction between the son of the petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant. The core issue that falls for consideration is whether the materials collected during investigation disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner or whether he has been unnecessarily roped in solely on account of his relationship with the principal accused.

¶3Since the petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings at the threshold, this Court is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as found in the First Information Report and the final report, prima facie make out the offences alleged against him. If the basic ingredients of the offences are absent, permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process of Court. Case of the prosecution:

¶4The prosecution case, as projected in the complaint and final report, is that the defacto complainant was carrying on business in the name and style of "Sri M. Punniyammal Traders" and that the first accused, who is the son of the petitioner, was carrying on business in the name and style of "SR Aswin Traders".

¶5According to the prosecution, during the year 2020, the first accused had purchased dhal and other goods from the defacto complainant on credit basis in the course of regular business transactions. Though substantial supplies had been made, the amount due was not fully settled. It is alleged that a total sum of Rs. 74,09,020/- was involved in the course of such transactions, out of which Rs.44,12,000/- had been paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 29,97,020/-.

¶6It is the further case of the prosecution that at the time when the first accused had defaulted in payment, the petitioner, who is the father of the first accused, had assured the defacto complainant that the outstanding amount would be paid within a short period. The prosecution would also allege that when the defacto complainant approached the accused for repayment, he was abused in filthy language and criminally intimidated.

¶7On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 35 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed in C.C.No.569 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

¶8In the final report, the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, while allegations under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, have been shown as against the first accused. Grounds for quash:

¶9The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the prosecution on several grounds. The first and foremost contention is that the entire dispute emanates from a commercial transaction between the first accused and the defacto complainant and that the petitioner has no independent role in the business carried on by his son.

¶10It was contended that the first accused was independently running "SR Aswin Traders" with separate Income Tax assessment and GST registration and that the petitioner was never a partner, proprietor, guarantor or participant in the said business. Therefore, merely because the petitioner is the father of the first accused, he cannot be criminally implicated for the dues allegedly payable by the first accused.

¶11The next contention is that the prosecution materials themselves would reveal that there were repeated business dealings between the first accused and the defacto complainant over a period of time beginning from the year 2020 and that part payments had also been made. Hence, the dispute, at its core, is one arising out of non-payment of money in the context of mercantile transactions and does not, by itself, disclose the ingredients of criminal offences.

¶12The learned counsel further submitted that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is wholly absent, since the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place in the house of the petitioner and not in a public place. According to him, one of the essential ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC is that the obscene utterance must have been made in or near a public place so as to cause annoyance, and the said requirement is not at all satisfied in the present case.

¶13It was also argued that the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506(i) IPC is vague, omnibus and bereft of particulars. There is no material to show any real, imminent or enforceable threat. Mere use of words in the course of a private dispute, without anything more, would not attract the offence of criminal intimidation.

¶14The learned counsel then attacked the charge under Section 120-B IPC by contending that there is absolutely no material to infer any prior agreement between the petitioner and the first accused to cheat or defraud the defacto complainant. The prosecution, according to him, has merely used the expression "common agreement" without disclosing the foundational facts necessary to constitute conspiracy.

¶15On the above submissions, it was pleaded that continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the proceedings as against him deserve to be quashed. Arguments on either side:

¶16The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the business dealings were exclusively between the first accused and the defacto complainant. He would submit that the petitioner had, at best, only attempted to pacify the situation and had expressed that the dues would be settled, but such assurance by itself cannot be elevated into criminal liability.

¶17He would further submit that even assuming the allegations in the charge sheet to be true in their entirety, the same would not make out the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) or 120-B IPC against the petitioner. The prosecution, according to him, has sought to criminalise a money claim and to convert a commercial dispute into a criminal proceeding.

¶18Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot now distance himself from the transaction, since it was he who had voluntarily intervened and given a written undertaking that the amount of Rs.29,97,020/- would be settled within a short time.

¶19The learned Government Advocate would submit that despite such undertaking, the money was not repaid and when the defacto complainant approached the petitioner, he was abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. It was further contended that the petitioner had joined hands with the first accused in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the defacto complainant and to wrongfully deny repayment.

¶20The learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant adopted the submissions of the learned Government Advocate and added that the overt acts attributed to the petitioner are specific in nature. According to the learned counsel, when the defacto complainant demanded repayment, the petitioner had abused him in obscene language and had criminally intimidated him even with threat to life. It was argued that these allegations clearly attract Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.

¶21The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had acted in tandem with the first accused and had consciously joined in the design to cheat the defacto complainant. Therefore, it was submitted that the prosecution ought not to be scuttled at the threshold and the petitioner should be made to face trial. Point for consideration

¶22In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this petition is: Whether the materials available in the final report prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, or any other offence, against the petitioner / Accused No.2, so as to warrant continuation of the prosecution in C.C.No.569 of 2023? Analysis:

¶23This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶24At the outset, it is necessary to note that the foundational transaction is purely commercial. The defacto complainant was carrying on business in the name and style of "Sri M. Punniyammal Traders" and the first accused was independently carrying on business in the name and style of "SR Aswin Traders". The materials placed before this Court also indicate that the first accused had his own business establishment with independent statutory registrations.

¶25The chronology of transactions, as reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that there were multiple purchases on different dates commencing from 03.11.2020 and continuing through November and December 2020 and January 2021. The existence of repeated transactions over a period of time, coupled with part payment of a substantial amount, clearly demonstrates that the parties were in an ongoing business relationship.

¶26The prosecution itself states that out of the total business transaction value of Rs.74,09,020/-, a sum of Rs.44,12,000/- had already been paid and only a balance sum of Rs.29,97,020/- remained due. This circumstance assumes significance because it indicates that the transaction was not a sham from inception, but one arising out of ordinary business dealings where payments had been made and a balance remained outstanding.

¶27The materials do not show that the petitioner was the purchaser of goods. They do not show that the petitioner ran the business of the first accused. They do not show that the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant at the inception of the transaction to part with goods or money. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution is only that when the dues remained unpaid, the petitioner had assured the defacto complainant that the amount would be settled.

¶28A father's assurance that his son would clear an outstanding commercial liability cannot, without more, be converted into criminal culpability. Criminal law requires specific allegations disclosing the ingredients of the offence. Relationship by itself is not a substitute for legal involvement.

¶29Insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients require utterance of obscene words in or near a public place causing annoyance. In the present case, even according to the charge sheet, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at the house of the petitioner. Thus, the element of "public place" is conspicuously absent.

¶30When the very location of the alleged occurrence, as narrated by the prosecution, is a private place, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, the charge under Section 294(b) IPC as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶31Coming to Section 506(i) IPC, the allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. However, the law is well settled that every expression of anger or every verbal altercation would not amount to criminal intimidation. The threat alleged must be real, serious and intended to cause alarm to the person threatened.

¶32In the present case, the charge sheet does not disclose any surrounding circumstances showing that the alleged words were accompanied by such imminence or seriousness as to create a genuine alarm. There is no material indicating any follow-up act, weapon, preparation or circumstance that would lend credibility to the threat. In the absence of such particulars, the allegation remains too bald and insufficient to sustain the charge under Section 506(i) IPC.

¶33The charge under Section 120-B IPC is even more fragile. Criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. Such agreement can no doubt be inferred from circumstances, but there must at least be circumstances giving rise to such inference.

¶34In the case on hand, except the assertion that the petitioner is the father of the first accused and that he had assured repayment, there is no material to show any prior meeting of minds between them to cheat the defacto complainant. The prosecution has not shown how or when the alleged conspiracy was hatched. No overt circumstances are pointed out to indicate that the petitioner had entered into any criminal agreement with the first accused.

¶35This Court is also unable to ignore the fact that the prosecution narrative essentially concerns a debt arising out of business supply of goods. The attempt to rope in the petitioner appears to have been made because he intervened in the matter and assured settlement. Such conduct may at best amount to a moral intervention, but it cannot automatically create criminal liability.

¶36Once the specific offences of Section 294(b), Section 506(i) and Section 120-B IPC are found to be unsupported by the necessary foundational facts, and when the principal business transaction itself is between the first accused and the defacto complainant, permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would be wholly unjustified.

¶37In the considered view of this Court, the materials collected during investigation do not prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. The continuation of proceedings against him in C.C.No.569 of 2023 would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶38For all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution in C.C.No.569 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, insofar as the petitioner / Accused No.2 is concerned, cannot be sustained.

¶39Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.569 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, are quashed insofar as the petitioner / Accused No.2 is concerned. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml

To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

¶2The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml CRL OP(MD)No.8369 of 2024

17.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8369 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5697 of 2024 Vairamani ... Petitioner / Accused No.2 Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhungar. Crime No.35/2022 ...1st Respondent / Complainant 2. Lakshmi Narayanan ...2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No. 569 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and quash the same as against the petitioners. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mariappan For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.M.Musthafa Khan