G. Prasad Raghavan vs Union Territory Of Puducherry

2025 INSC 1221 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 12380 OF 2025]

G. PRASAD RAGHAVAN …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-original

accused no.2 against the order dated 15.04.2025 rendered

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal

Revision Case No. 1430 of 2024 by which the Criminal

Revision Case filed by the present appellant has been

dismissed.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as

under:-

Signature Not Verified

(i) The original informant, Ms. Amutha filed FIR being Digitally signed by NISHA KHULBEY

No.0032 before CBCID Police Station, Puducherry against Date: 2025.10.13 14:00:19 IST Reason:

the Original Accused No.1 namely Gunasekaran for SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 1 of 9 committing an offence punishable under Section 420 of

Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The said FIR came to

be lodged on 13.10.2022. Mainly, it has been alleged in

the said FIR that the original accused, Gunasekaran

made a representation that he is having a vacant plot and

wanted to sell the same. The informant inspected the

vacant plot and decided to purchase the same and

thereafter on 13.05.2015, an unregistered sale agreement

for purchase of the vacant plot in question was executed.

It was decided to purchase the same for total amount of

Rs. 1,64,10,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was

paid by way of cash and thereafter on 17.02.2016, a sum

of Rs.55,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1. Necessary

endorsement was also made by the accused. Thereafter,

two cheques each for Rs.10,00,000/- were given to the

accused.

(ii)It is further alleged that thereafter it was revealed that

accused was not having any title to sell the said plot and

thereafter when contacted the accused gave inconsistent

reply and assured that he will execute the sale deed in

favour of the informant. It is further alleged that the SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 2 of 9 accused received a sum of Rs.92,00,000/- from the

informant, despite which he has refused to register and

execute the sale deed in favour of the informant and

thereby has committed the alleged offence punishable

under Section 420 of the IPC.

(iii) It further transpires from the record that after

investigation, the investigating officer filed the

chargesheet against the original accused as well as the

present appellant, who is the son of the original accused,

for committing offences punishable under Sections 420,

406, 294(b), 506 (i) of IPC read with Section 34 of the

IPC.

(iv) It is alleged in the chargesheet that accused no. 1,

Gunasekaran had obtained the power of Attorney from

the original owners of the property on 03.03.2022 and

executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant

(accused no. 2), who is the son of the accused No.1 for a

sum of Rs. 60,00,00/-. It is alleged that the present

appellant-accused no.2 had registered the property in

question in his name knowing fully well that accused no.

1, Gunasekaran had not returned the amount of the sale SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 3 of 9 consideration received from the informant. It is also

alleged that the accused No.2 (appellant herein) had no

income of his own to purchase the property since he is a

student.

(v) The appellant as well as accused No.1 jointly filed petition

under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

discharge before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate

at Puducherry. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order

dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the said application.

(vi) The present appellant with the accused no. 1 jointly filed

the criminal revision application before the High Court of

Judicature at Madras. However, the High Court has

dismissed the said criminal revision application vide

impugned order and therefore the present appellant-

original accused no.2 has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned

senior counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend

that the transaction in question took place in the year 2015

between original accused No. 1 and the informant. Even as

per the case of the informant, the original accused no. 1 SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 4 of 9 made a representation with regard to the plot in question

and thereafter as alleged by the informant, the particular

amount was given by him to the original accused no. 1. At

the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2015, the present

appellant was a minor. Thus, no representation was made

by the present appellant to the informant nor any

inducement was given by the present appellant. The

appellant is nowhere connected with the transaction in

question at the relevant point of time.

Thus, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not at all

made out.

6. Learned Counsel would further submit that merely because

the present appellant has purchased the plot in the year

2022 from accused no. 1, it cannot be inferred that the

appellant has committed the alleged offences. Thus, the trial

court ought to have allowed the discharge application filed

by the present appellant. Similarly, the High Court has also

committed an error while not entertaining the criminal

revision application qua the present appellant. Learned

counsel therefore urged that present appeal be allowed by

quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 5 of 9 the High Court as well as the trial court and thereby allow

the discharge application filed by the present appellant.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent has opposed the present appeal. Learned

counsel has mainly contented that the original accused no.

1 who is the father of the present appellant has sold the plot

in question to the present appellant in the year 2022. When

the property was sold to the present appellant, the appellant

was major and in fact the appellant was a student at the

relevant point of time, despite which he paid the amount of

consideration to the original accused no. 1. Thus, the

investigating officer has filed the chargesheet against both

the accused for committing the alleged offences. It is also

contended that the High Court has rightly observed that

after considering the entire material and the allegation in

the chargesheet and the statement of the witnesses, prima

facie material to proceed with the case against both the

accused are made out and therefore the Court cannot

conduct a roving enquiry to testify the veracity of the

documents while deciding the petition under Section 239 of

SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 6 of 9 the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel therefore

has contended that the present appeal be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and

having gone through the materials placed on record, it

transpires that the informant has filed the FIR under

Section 420 of IPC against the original accused No. 1 only. If

the allegations levelled in the said FIR is carefully examined,

it would reveal that the transaction between the informant

and the accused no. 1 took place in the year 2015. The

allegation of making representation as well as endorsement

was made against the accused no.1. Further, the payment

was made to the accused no.1 in the year 2015-2016. It is

not in dispute that in the year 2015-2016, the appellant

herein was minor. It is not the case of the informant that

the appellant herein has made any representation or there

was any inducement on the part of the present appellant. It

is not even the case of the informant that he had made the

payment to the present appellant for the transaction with

regard to the plot in question.

9. From the record, it further transpires that now the only

allegation against the appellant herein is that he had

SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 7 of 9 purchased the plot in question from the original accused no.

1 in the year 2022. Thus, when the transaction took place

between the informant and original accused no. 1 in the

year 2015-2016, the appellant was minor, hence ingredients

of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the

IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC are not made out qua

appellant. Further, it is not the case of the informant that

the appellant herein has given any threat nor any criminal

intimidation was made by the appellant.

10. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the

present case, we are of the view that there is no material

placed on record from which it can be said that the

appellant herein has committed the alleged offences and

therefore the concerned trial court as well as the High Court

have committed an error while dismissing the discharge

application filed by the present appellant and while

dismissing their criminal revision application filed by the

appellant herein.

11. Accordingly, the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the trial

court in Cr.M.P.No.11118/2023 in CC. No.588/2023 is

hereby quashed and set aside qua appellant. Further, order SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 8 of 9 dated 15.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.1430/2024 is also

quashed and set aside qua appellant. Consequently, the

application submitted by the appellant under Section 239 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge is allowed qua

the appellant. The proceedings pending pursuant to the FIR

No. 0032 dated 13.10.2022 registered before CBCID PS,

Puducherry and the chargesheet filed pursuant to the said

FIR qua the appellant herein are also quashed and set aside.

Appeal is accordingly allowed.

.......……….…………………….J. [SANJAY KAROL]

..….....………………………….J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 10, 2025.

SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025 Page 9 of 9