G.V. Adhimoolam vs The Inspector Of Police

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022)

G.V. ADHIMOOLAM & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10691 of 2022)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA

1. Heard.

Date: 2025.05.14 18:25:53 IST Reason: 1

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants in these two appeals are aggrieved

by the common order dated 27th September, 2022,

whereby, the Criminal Original Petition1 filed by the

appellants2 herein under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 19733, seeking quashing of the

complaint/FIR in Crime No. 21 dated 4th June, 2019,

registered with the Inspector of Police, District Crime

Branch4, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu, stands

rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras5.

4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for

disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow.

1 Crl. O.P. 14850 of 2019.

2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused-appellants’. 3 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’. 4 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘DCB’. 5 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.

2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

5. Respondent No.2-complainant, namely M. Senthil

Kumar6, and R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No.5) are real

brothers. The appellant, Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3),

is the daughter of R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5).

The appellant-Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) is the husband

of Sharmila Devi, appellant-G.V. Adhimoolam (accused

No. 1) is her father-in-law and appellant-R.

Jagadeeswaran (accused No. 4) is her real brother. The

complainant’s brother, R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No.

5), passed away after lodging of the complaint.

6. The complainant lodged a complaint with the

Inspector of Police, DCB on 4th June, 2019, alleging

inter alia that he was involved in business of textile

yarn. His elder brother, R.M. Rajamanikam (since

deceased), used to reside near his house. R.

6 For short, ‘complainant’.

3 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 Jagadeeswaran (accused No. 4) and Sharmila Devi

(accused No. 3) are his nephew and niece respectively.

Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) married Vijayaraj

(accused No. 2), son of G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No.

1). R.M. Rajamanikam, the elder brother of the

complainant advised him to diversify into some other

business by joining with his daughter’s in-laws.

7. R.M. Rajamanikam met the complainant and

apprised him that G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1),

Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) and Vijayaraj (accused

No. 2) were initiating a Nissan car dealership and were

ready to join the complainant as a partner in the

business. The complainant was given an allurement

that he would earn several crores of rupees by joining

the business. The complainant trusted the suggestion

given by R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5) and

4 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 accordingly, he transferred a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-

way back in the year 2013 from the bank account of

Varshini Traders in State Bank of Patiala, being run by

him along with his father-in-law, to the bank account of

the firm Sri Vakkira Kalliamman Spinning Mills Pvt.

Ltd., being run by R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5).

As per the complainant, his elder brother transferred

the said amount on the very same day to the account of

G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1).

8. Fifteen days later, he was invited to Pallipalayam.

Accordingly, he went to the house of G.V. Adhimoolam

(accused No. 1) and was asked to pay an additional sum

of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards his share in the business.

The complainant offered the said amount to G.V.

Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) in cash which was received

by Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3) in the presence of

5 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 Vijayaraj (accused No. 2). The accused-appellants

launched the Nissan car showroom and were operating

the same regularly, but the complainant was not made

a partner in the dealership despite the assurance and

the huge investment made by him.

9. Being perturbed by his intentional and fraudulent

exclusion from the dealership business, the

complainant enquired from the accused-appellants as

to why he had not been made a partner even though he

had invested huge sums of money for induction into the

said business. The accused-appellants, gave evasive

replies upon which the complainant demanded that his

money be returned. The accused-appellants assured

him that they would repay the amount at a later point

of time because they did not have the money at hand

then.

6 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

10. G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) and Sharmila

Devi (accused No. 3) sent text messages to the

complainant requesting him to visit their place so that

the amount could be returned. Accordingly, the

complainant accompanied by his father-in-law,

brother-in-law and uncle, went to meet G.V.

Adhimoolam (accused No. 1) on 22nd May, 2019 around

02:00 pm.

11. It is alleged in the complaint that Vijayaraj

(accused No. 2) and G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1)

were also present in their house. The complainant

implored them as to why he had not been inducted into

the business and that he was in a dire financial crunch

and pleaded with the accused-appellants to return the

money he had advanced for being inducted as a partner

in the car dealership. Being enraged by this demand,

7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) and his father, G.V.

Adhimoolam (accused No. 1), started yelling at the

complainant and attempted to hit him using a plastic

chair. During this scuffle, G.V. Adhimoolam (accused

No. 1) hurled profanities at the complainant and

imputed that he would be hacked to death so that he

would no longer be able to demand money from the

accused.

12. When the complainant and his companions tried

to escape, they were obstructed and their way was

blocked by R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No.5), his son

R. Jagadeeswaran (accused No. 4) and his daughter

Sharmila Devi (accused No.3), who tried to assault them

and also abused them verbally. With great deal of

difficulty, the complainant and his companions

managed to escape from the clutches of the accused-

8 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 appellants. He alleged in the complaint that he had

been cheated and duped by the accused nominated in

the report and implored the Investigating Officer to

recover his money fraudulently usurped by the accused

while conducting the investigation.

13. The aforesaid complaint was submitted to the

Inspector of Police, Pallipalayam, where FIR No. 21 of

2019 came to be registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 342, 294(b) and 506(1) of the

Indian Penal Code, 18607 and the investigation was

commenced. The quashing petition filed by the accused-

appellants stands rejected by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras vide order dated 27th September,

2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in these

appeals by special leave.

7 For short, “IPC”.

9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

14. Notice was issued in the special leave petitions

way back on 21st November, 2022 and the accused-

appellants were protected from arrest. Service upon the

respondents was duly effected in early 2023. Despite

ample opportunities, neither counter affidavit has been

filed by the respondent-State nor has anyone entered

appearance for the respondent No. 2-complainant

despite service.

15. We have heard the arguments advanced by Shri S.

Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel representing the

accused-appellants and Shri V. Krishnamurthy,

learned AAG representing the State of Tamil Nadu.

16. Mr. S. Nathamuthu, learned senior counsel

representing the accused-appellants urged that ex

facie, from the allegations levelled in the FIR, no

cognizable offence whatsoever is made out against the

10 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 accused-appellants. A dispute purely of civil nature,

has been given colour of a crime by misusing the

criminal law and the police machinery has been

involved to act as recovery agents rather than

approaching the civil Court. As a matter of fact, the

complainant and his companions had trespassed into

the house of the appellant-Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) on

15th & 21st May, 2019 and indulged in hurling filthy

abuses and made attempts to physically assault the

accused-appellants and their family members. The

complainant slapped his elder brother, R.M.

Rajamanikam (accused no. 5) who fell down and was

badly injured. A complaint was filed by appellant-

Vijayaraj (accused No. 2) for this act of aggression and

trespass against respondent No. 2-complainant and his

companion. When the summons of this complaint were

11 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 issued to the complainant, by way of a counterblast, he

filed the impugned FIR implicating the accused-

appellants in a totally frivolous criminal case without

there being an iota of truth in the allegations as set out

in the complaint.

17. Learned senior counsel further contended that

even if the allegations set out in the impugned FIR are

accepted to be true, apparently the complainant had

transferred the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the

account of Sri Vakkira Kaliamman Spinning Mills Pvt.

Ltd. and not the accused-appellants. The accused-

appellants neither made any promise to the

complainant nor did they fraudulently induce him to

part with money or valuable security with the intention

to cheat. It was submitted that the complainant and his

elder brother, R.M. Rajamanikam, (accused No. 5) were

12 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 doing yarn business, and the amounts were transferred

by the complainant to the firm of R.M. Rajamanikam

(accused no. 5) in connection with the said business.

The said transaction has no link whatsoever with the

car dealership business of the accused-appellants. The

complainant has, by way of the highly belated

complaint, tried to manipulate the facts and has come

up with a totally cooked up theory regarding the

amount being meant for investment in the Nissan car

dealership being operated by appellant-Vijayaraj

(accused No. 2). Learned senior counsel submitted that

since there was no direct fiduciary dealing between the

accused-appellants and the complainant, there is no

justification whatsoever for the prosecution of the

accused-appellants in the patently cooked up and

belated FIR.

13 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

18. He urged that so far as the offences under Sections

294(b) IPC and 506(1) IPC are concerned, admittedly it

was the complainant and his companions, who entered

into the house of the accused-appellants and created a

ruckus. Even if, some hot words were exchanged during

this commotion, apparently the ingredients of the

offences punishable under Sections 294(b) IPC and

506(1) IPC would not be attracted.

19. The learned senior counsel for the accused-

appellants further submitted that the alleged monetary

transactions took place way back in the year 2013

whereas the FIR has been lodged in the year 2019. No

explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the

complainant for this huge delay in lodging of the FIR.

He, thus, urged that the proceedings of the impugned

14 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 FIR lodged against the accused-appellants tantamount

to a gross abuse of the process of law.

On these grounds, learned senior counsel

implored the Court to set aside the impugned order and

quash the FIR No. 21 of 2019 and all subsequent

proceedings sought to be taken against the accused-

appellants in furtherance thereof.

20. E-converso, Shri. V. Krishnamurthy, learned

senior AAG for the respondent-State opposed the

submissions advanced by the accused-appellants’

counsel. He urged that the principles for quashing of

an FIR in exercise of the inherent powers of the High

Court have been well settled by this Court in a plethora

of judgments. At this stage, the Courts are only required

to have a look at the allegations as set out in the FIR

and the defence, if any, of the accused-appellants

15 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 cannot be gone into. As per learned senior counsel, the

allegations in the impugned FIR/complaint disclose the

necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and thus,

the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing

petition filed by the accused-appellants. He, thus, urged

that the appeals deserve to be rejected.

21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and have gone through the material available on

record.

22. As per the admitted case set out in the complaint,

it is clear that the initial suggestion was given to the

complainant for making an investment in the business,

being run by the accused-appellants, by R.M.

Rajamanikam (accused No. 5), the real brother of the

complainant. The complainant categorically asserted in

16 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 his complaint that it was the suggestion of his brother,

R.M. Rajamanikam (accused no. 5), that if he invested

in Nissan car dealership being operated by G.V.

Adhimoolam (accused No. 1), Vijayaraj (accused No. 2)

and Sharmila Devi (accused No. 3), he could be joined

as a partner and such an investment would reap good

profits. Apparently thus, if at all, any investment was

actually made by the complainant in the business of the

accused-appellants, it was on the suggestion of R.M.

Rajamanikam (accused no. 5). As per the admitted

allegations set out in the FIR, the amount of

Rs.1,50,00,000/- was transferred by the complainant

to the account of the firm, named Sri Vakkira

Kaliamman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd, being operated by

R.M. Rajamanikam (accused No. 5). The complainant,

of course, claims that his elder brother transferred the

17 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 said amount on the very same day to the bank account

of G.V. Adhimoolam (accused No. 1).

23. Going by the allegations as set out in the

complaint, admittedly none of the accused-appellants

gave any sort of inducement or promise to the

complainant that he could invest in the Nissan car

dealership and that such investment would fetch good

returns. The amount was admittedly transferred by the

complainant to the firm, Sri Vakkira Kalliamman

Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., on the suggestion of R.M.

Rajamanikam (accused no. 5) and hence, there arises

no question whatsoever of the accused-appellants

having given the complainant an allurement to invest

money in their business with a promise that such

investment would fetch good returns.

18 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

24. The gross delay of 6 years in filing the FIR in

relation to the investment already made in the year

2013 is yet another important factor which convinces

us that there was no bona fide cause behind lodging of

the FIR and, as a matter of fact, the complainant has

utilised this huge delay to spin a web in order to

somehow or the other entangle the accused-appellants

in a criminal case and to involve the police to act as

recovery agents rather than invoking the jurisdiction of

the civil Courts. As a matter of fact, it is clear that the

limitation for filing a civil suit had lapsed and thus, the

complainant created a story to somehow or other, make

an attempt to get his money recovered by resorting to

the present criminal proceedings.

25. For invocation of the offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC, it is imperative that the accused

19 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 should have induced the victim to part with valuable

security and that such inducement should at the

inception been made with the intention to defraud the

aggrieved person. Considered in light of the admitted

facts as set out in the highly belated FIR, we are of the

firm view that in the present case the necessary

ingredients of Section 420 IPC are totally missing from

the admitted and highest allegations of the

complainant.

26. The second allegation levelled by the complainant

in the FIR is to the effect that he paid a cash amount to

the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- to G.V. Adhimoolam

(accused no. 1) towards his share in the business. At

the outset, we may state that the claim about a cash

transaction for a huge sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- would

have to be corroborated by properly verified account

20 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 statements for it to be considered reliable.

Furthermore, such a transaction would be in teeth of

the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act

as it stood in the year 2013. However, the complainant

did not even allege in the report that this amount was

garnered through some valid sources or that the same

was accounted for in the records of the complainant.

Hence, this allegation of the complainant has no

sanctity in the eyes of law. The said allegation also

appears to be totally false and fabricated, framed to

somehow or the other lend credence to the fictitious

story set out in the highly belated FIR. It is absolutely

impossible to believe that before investing a huge sum

of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- in the car business of the accused-

appellants, the complainant would neither request for

21 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 some written acknowledgement nor ask for the profile,

if any, of the business.

27. The third part of the FIR relating to the incident

dated 22nd May, 2019, also appears to be a story simply

created to somehow or the other invoke the offences

punishable under Sections 294(b), 342 and 506(1) IPC

so as to entangle the accused-appellants in a criminal

prosecution. It is an admitted position that Vijayaraj

(accused No. 2) had lodged a report with the Inspector

of Police, Pallipalayam on 22nd May, 2019, alleging

therein that the complainant and his family members

came to his house and misbehaved with his family

members and also tried to indulge in physical assault.

The police officers issued summons to the complainant

under Section 160 CrPC, in connection with the said

complaint filed by Vijayaraj (accused no. 2). It is only

22 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 after receiving the summons that the impugned FIR

came to be lodged on 4th June, 2019. The failure of the

complainant to take action in relation to the alleged

incident dated 22nd May, 2019, for almost 12 days again

brings his entire story under a cloud of doubt. For the

sake of arguments, even if we believe the above version

of the complainant then also, clearly the incident dated

22nd May, 2019, took place in the house of the accused-

appellants and thus even if some verbal exchanges took

place in the heat of the moment, the same would not

give rise to the offences as alleged by the complainant.

That apart, we are satisfied that the words and verbal

slangs imputed to the accused-appellants by the

complainant in the belated FIR do not constitute the

necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under

Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC.

23 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

28. Likewise, the theory put forth by the complainant

in the FIR that he and his companions were wrongfully

restrained thereby giving rise to offence punishable

under Section 342 IPC is also a ploy of the complainant

to somehow or the other, add gravity to the case in order

to settle the scores with the accused-appellants.

29. This Court in the case of Iqbal v. State of Uttar

Pradesh8 laid down the principles governing the

exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or

the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing of the criminal

proceedings or the FIR. The relevant observations from

the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:-

“9. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

8 (2023) 8 SCC 734.

24

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.

10. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.

11. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. . .”

(emphasis supplied)

25 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

30. Considered in light of the aforesaid judgment, we

are of the view that the present one is also a case

wherein the proceedings of the impugned FIR are

manifestly frivolous and vexatious or instituted with the

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

31. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we

conclude: -

a. That the impugned FIR has been lodged with a

gross delay of more than 6 years in which no

explanation is forthcoming.

b. That even from the admitted contents of the FIR,

evidently, there is no allegation that any of the

accused-appellants induced the complainant to

invest in their car dealership business.

26 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 c. That the parties are closely related to each other

and that the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was

admittedly transferred by the complainant to the

account of the firm, Sri Vakkira Kalliamman

Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., which is run by his elder

brother, R.M. Rajamanikam (accused no.5).

Thus, neither did the accused-appellants make any

inducement whatsoever to the complainant nor was the

complainant defrauded into parting with any valuable

security in favour of the accused-appellants by acting

on such inducement.

32. The allegation of the complainant regarding the

incident of verbal abuse, hurting of religious sentiments

and criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint dated

22nd May, 2019, is also unbelievable for the simple

reason that all these acts admittedly happened in the

27 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022 house of the accused where the complainant and his

family members had gone. Hence, the accused-

appellants had no reason whatsoever to indulge in such

acts. Apparently, these allegations are nothing but

exaggerations which complainant has employed in

order to wreak vengeance against the accused.

33. As a result, the order under challenge dated 27th

September, 2022, passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras is unsustainable on the face of

the record and is hereby set aside.

34. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 21 of 2019

dated 4th June, 2019, and all proceedings sought to be

taken therein against the accused-appellants are

hereby quashed as the same tantamount to a gross

abuse of the process of law.

28 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022

35. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

April 04, 2025.

29 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10754 of 2022