(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.08.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.37731 of 2024 in C.C.No.6662 of 2022, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai and CBCID Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the defacto complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai and CBCID Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.37731 of 2024, discharging the sixth accused/1st respondent herein in C.C.No.6662 of 2022.

2. The gist of the allegation in the final report filed against the 1st respondent/A6 and others is that the first accused in this case represented to the petitioner/defacto complainant that he is the DGM of a company by the name 'ITI Limited'; that they were authorised suppliers of COVID-19 materials, viz., face shield, face mask, Nitrile gloves to Government Hospitals; that pursuant to the said representation, the petitioner/defacto complainant agreed to enter into a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 01.02.2021 for Rs.11,24,20,000/-; that the petitioner/defacto complainant obtained loan; that at the instance of the first accused, the petitioner/defacto complainant had initially transferred Rs.5 Crores to M/s.Connoiseur Electronics Private Limited and since they did not supply the said materials, the said amount was returned to the petitioner/defacto complainant; that thereafter at the instance of the first accused, the petitioner/defacto complainant has transferred various monies to the accounts of the other accused viz., A2 to A5; and that during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the other accused have transferred certain money to the 1st respondent/sixth accused and hence, he is also guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st respondent/sixth accused sought for discharge before the learned Magistrate in Crl.MP.No.37331 of 2024 on the ground that the case of the prosecution that A2 had transferred Rs.75 Lakhs and that A5 had transferred Rs.5 Lakhs to him, has nothing to do with the alleged cheating said to have been committed by A1 against the petitioner/defacto complainant; that he had already transferred Rs.52 Lakhs to A5 and therefore, he ought to be discharged.

4. The State/2nd respondent filed a counter to the said discharge petition stating that since the petitioner/defacto complainant had lost a sum of Rs.3.20 Crores; that a portion of the said amount was transferred by A2 and A5 to the 1st respondent/sixth accused; and that he is part of the conspiracy and therefore, cannot be discharged.

5. The learned Magistrate held that it is the specific case of the petitioner/defacto complainant that the alleged acts of cheating took place between 01.12.2021 and 22.02.2021 by A1 to A5; that the amounts transferred by A2 and A5 to the 1st respondent/sixth accused were much prior to the alleged act of cheating i.e., between 01.12.2020 and 21.12.2020; that the petitioner/defacto complainant has not made any allegation against the 1st respondent/sixth accused, either in the FIR or in the statement made to the police; that the money was actually transferred to a company by the name 'M/s.Pregio Pharma Private Limited' in which the 1st respondent/sixth accused was the Managing Director and he was made an accused without accusing the said company, viz., M/sPregio Pharma Private Limited, in whose account the money was transferred.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that the learned Magistrate erred in discharging the 1st respondent/sixth accused; that the question as to whether the 1st respondent/sixth accused had conspired with the other accused or is liable under Section 34 of the IPC for the acts done by the other accused, ought not to have been adjudicated in a discharge petition; that the 1st respondent/sixth accused while obtaining anticipatory bail, had deposited a sum of Rs.28 Lakhs to the credit of Cr.No.90 of 2021 and since he had admitted his liability and had indulged in money laundering by receiving money from the other accused without any consideration, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/sixth accused per contra submitted that the transaction between the 1st respondent/sixth accused and the other accused are independent of any alleged act of cheating said to have been committed by the other accused; that the learned Magistrate had specifically observed that the petitioner/defacto complainant himself had not accused the 1st respondent/sixth accused of any offence; that merely because there were transaction between the 1st respondent/sixth accused and the other accused, the offences would not be made out; that the alleged transactions between the 1st respondent/sixth accused and the other accused took place much prior to the alleged act of cheating said to have been committed by the other accused and therefore, the impugned order is justified and prayed for dismissal.

8. The learned counsel would further submit that merely because the 1st respondent/sixth accused had deposited Rs.28 Lakhs when he obtained anticipatory bail, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent/sixth accused had admitted his liability; that the instant petition seeking to set aside the impugned order was filed with a delay; that the petitioner/defacto complainant had clandestinely withdrawn Rs.28 Lakhs and when the 1st respondent/sixth accused sought for return of the money after he was discharged, the petitioner/defacto complainant did not return the money and hence, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner/defacto complainant; that when the petitioner/defacto complainant approached this Court in Crl.OP.No.24349 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest pursuant to the nonbailable warrant, this Court had stayed the non-bailable warrant on the condition that the petitioner/defacto complainant deposits Rs.28 Lakhs; and that the challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner/defacto complainant is only to obtain the said sum of Rs.28 Lakhs which is deposited to the credit of C.C.No.6662 of 2022.

9. In response the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 in Crl.OP.No.24349 of 2025 had made the following observations:

                     “7. Hence, the execution of NBW issued against this petitioner is stayed, on condition that the petitioner herein deposit a sum of Rs.28 lakhs on or before 17.09.2025 in C.C.No.6662 of 2022. The said amount shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by the accused particularly A6, until the trial in C.C.No.6662 of 2022 reaches its logical end.”

He therefore submitted that until the conclusion of the trial, the 1st respondent/sixth accused cannot be permitted to withdraw the said amount.

10. As stated above, it is the case of the 1st respondent/sixth accused that the other accused had received various sums of money on the promise of supplying certain COVID-19 related products. The 1st respondent/sixth accused has not been named in the FIR. In the FIR it is specifically stated that the money has been received by the accused between the period from 01.02.2021 to 22.02.2021. It is seen that pursuant to a different transaction, A2 and A5 had transferred Rs.75 Lakhs and Rs.5 Lakhs respectively, in December 2020 to the company in which 1st respondent/sixth accused was the Managing Director. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent/sixth accused had any common intention to cheat the petitioner/defacto complainant.

11. The learned Magistrate has considered the above aspects and found that there is no material to prosecute the 1st respondent/sixth accused for the alleged offences. This Court finds no infirmity in the said finding of the learned Magistrate as admittedly, the 1st respondent/sixth accused has not made any representation to the defacto complainant/petitioner herein or received any money directly from the petitioner/defacto complainant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismissed the above revision.

12. As regards the sum of Rs.28 Lakhs, which has been credited pursuant to the anticipatory bail order in Crl.OP.No.24349 of 2025 to the credit of C.C.No.6662 of 2022, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/sixth accused would submit that the 1st respondent/sixth accused was not heard while making the above extracted observations and therefore, on discharge, the 1st respondent/sixth accused is entitled to return of money. This Court is of the view that in view of this order, it is always open to the 1st respondent to seek clarification or seek other remedy for return of the said amount.

13. In the light of the above discussions, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.08.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.37731 of 2024 in C.C.No.6662 of 2022, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai and CBCID Metro Cases), Egmore, Chennai, is sustained. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.