The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings for cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) against Mr. G. Prasad Raghavan (Accused No. 2), who was implicated in a land dispute alongside his father.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while allowing the appeal, set aside orders from the Madras High Court and the trial court that had refused to discharge the appellant. The Supreme Court concluded that there was “no material placed on record” to suggest the appellant committed the alleged offences, crucially noting that he was a minor when the original transaction occurred and had made no representations to the informant.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 0032) lodged on October 13, 2022, by the original informant, Ms. Amutha. The FIR was filed at the CBCID Police Station, Puducherry, solely against the appellant’s father, Mr. Gunasekaran (Original Accused No. 1), for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
The FIR alleged that Accused No. 1 represented that he owned a vacant plot and intended to sell it. The informant agreed to purchase the plot for a total consideration of Rs. 1,64,10,000/-, and an unregistered sale agreement was executed on May 13, 2015. Payments allegedly amounting to Rs. 92,00,000/- were made in 2015 and 2016. The informant later discovered that Accused No. 1 allegedly lacked title to the property and subsequently refused to execute the sale deed.
Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against both Accused No. 1 and his son, the appellant Mr. G. Prasad Raghavan (Accused No. 2), for offences under Sections 420, 406, 294(b), and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The allegation against the appellant (Accused No. 2) in the chargesheet was that Accused No. 1 executed a sale deed for the same property in his (Accused No. 2’s) favour on March 3, 2022, for Rs. 60,00,00/-. The chargesheet claimed the appellant, though a student, registered the property “knowing fully well” that his father had not returned the sale consideration received from the informant.
The appellant and Accused No. 1 jointly filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Puducherry. The CJM dismissed this petition on March 15, 2024. A subsequent Criminal Revision Case (No. 1430 of 2024) filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras was also dismissed by an order dated April 15, 2025, prompting Accused No. 2 to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the transaction in question occurred in 2015 between Accused No. 1 and the informant. It was stressed that the appellant was a minor at that time and “is nowhere connected with the transaction in question at the relevant point of time.” The counsel submitted that the appellant made no representations or inducements, and the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. It was further contended 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.”
Conversely, learned senior counsel for the respondent (Union Territory of Puducherry) opposed the appeal. The respondent argued that Accused No. 1 sold the plot to the appellant in 2022 when the appellant was a major, despite being a student. The respondent supported the High Court’s finding that there was prima facie material to proceed, stating that the court cannot conduct a “roving enquiry to testify the veracity of the documents” when deciding a discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, “having gone through the materials placed on record,” began its analysis by observing that the initial FIR was filed only against Accused No. 1 and that the alleged transaction took place in 2015-2016.
The bench noted a key undisputed fact: “It is not in dispute that in the year 2015-2016, the appellant herein was minor.”
Based on this, the Court found a complete absence of mens rea or participation by the appellant in the original alleged crime. In a key observation, the judgment states: “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.”
The bench determined that the “only allegation against the appellant herein is that he had purchased the plot in question from the original accused no. 1 in the year 2022.”
The Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the primary offences were not met. “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,” the judgment reads.
Addressing the other charges, the Court added, “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.”
Holding that the lower courts had erred, the Supreme Court stated: “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…”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The order dated March 15, 2024, passed by the trial court (CJM, Puducherry) and the order dated April 15, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras were “quashed and set aside qua appellant.”
Consequently, the appellant’s application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC was allowed. All proceedings pending against the appellant, G. Prasad Raghavan, pursuant to the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet were also “quashed and set aside.”
