https://x.com/i/status/2086096599760146660 [08/08, 19:56] sekarreporter1: [08/08, 19:55] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxjw7x39eHeSaC0OuH7_jPTEoGVA4Egwwv?si=ncnnl5RzKpsTfId- [08/08, 19:55] sekarreporter1: Even in A Civil Dispute, There Is No Bar To Prosecution When Clear Criminal Offences Are Alleged; Cannot Be Termed “Dressing Up” A Civil Cause As Criminal: Madras High Court

[08/08, 19:56] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2086096599760146660
[08/08, 19:56] sekarreporter1: [08/08, 19:55] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxjw7x39eHeSaC0OuH7_jPTEoGVA4Egwwv?si=ncnnl5RzKpsTfId-
[08/08, 19:55] sekarreporter1: Even in A Civil Dispute, There Is No Bar To Prosecution When Clear Criminal Offences Are Alleged; Cannot Be Termed “Dressing Up” A Civil Cause As Criminal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR arising from a property transaction allegedly structured as security for a loan, holding that the existence of civil elements in a transaction would not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations independently disclose a cognisable offence.

Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the transaction was a sale transaction, pure and simple, and that whether the alleged sale was a sale or mortgage was a question civil in nature. Relying on A.M. Mohan v. State, he contended that dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction was a sine qua non for attracting the offence of cheating and that there was not even such an allegation. He also relied on R.P. Ganeshan v. State and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to seek quashing of the FIR.

Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that the case involved a transaction of advance of money and repayment, where the accused had taken sale deeds in their names and, while accepting repayment money, failed to accept the final payment. He submitted that the case had been registered and the matter was under investigation.

Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, submitted that the subsequent transactions, including the complainant joining as a witness while executing gift deeds towards the local body and being included as a co-applicant in proceedings relating to DTCP approval, would reveal that the property was given only as security for the loan transaction. He relied upon bank statements, road pattern approval, DTCP communications and payment receipts. Relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, he submitted that where there appeared to be a criminal offence committed, interference should not be made.

Hon’ble Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the matter with reference to the question of title to the lands and the nature of the transaction was civil in nature. However, even in a civil dispute between the parties, if there are also allegations that the parties had committed criminal offences, there is no bar to prosecution.

The Court observed that in case of an outright purchase, no purchaser would include the vendor at every stage of the subsequent development of the property and noted that no Power of Attorney was produced. It held that when the averments in the complaint point towards the ingredients of commission of a cognisable offence, despite the transaction also being civil in nature, the prosecution certainly would lie. When clear offences are alleged and sought to be investigated, it cannot be said to be an exaggeration or dressing up a civil cause as criminal in nature.

The Court further held that the contentions relating to the WhatsApp conversations were factual in nature and could be looked into only by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It observed that if a detailed analysis of those conversations was undertaken by the Court, it would amount to the Court assuming the role of the investigator. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case: Subhash Chand Jain & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch & Anr.

Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.29257 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19884 of 2025 and 12046 of 2026

Date of Judgment: 05.08.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

For Petitioners: Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, for M/s. S. Kushi

For R1: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2: Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Counsel, for Mr. M. Vimal Bobby Crimson