CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 and CRL.MP.No.12162 of 2026 1. Manikandan 2. Sridhar ..Petitioners Vs. 1. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District. 2. Elavarasan ..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the charge sheet in C.C.No.214 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur and quash the same. For Petitioners: Mr.T.Ganesan For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.214 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, registered against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 306 of BNS. 2. The prayer sought in this petition is innocuous in nature, and as such, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, without ordering notice to the respondent. 3. A perusal of the First Information Report (FIR), the materials collected during the course of the investigation and the final report reveals that the petitioners, while being employed under the second respondent/de facto complainant, executed repairs and provided spare parts to a customer. Though they officially declared the transaction as a ‘zero bill’, they allegedly collected a sum of Rs.6667/- from the customer into their personal accounts and repaid the said amount to the de facto complainant only on the following day. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this was a routine procedure adopted under the instructions of the company management. He further submitted that the petitioners had no intention to misappropriate the amount and that there were ongoing disputes between the parties regarding the non-payment of wages. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that according to the statement of the second respondent/de facto complainant (L.W.1), the repayment was made only after the de facto complainant unearthed the alleged fraud. 6. Merely because the complaint was preferred after the date of repayment, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the offence stands erased. Whether the transaction was part of a routine procedure or whether the petitioners returned the money only upon confrontation is a triable issue of fact. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the quash application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 7. Therefore, while leaving it open to the petitioners to raise all available grounds before the Trial Court, this criminal original petition stands disposed of. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners repaid the money on the very next day and factoring in the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except for those crucial hearings where their presence is indispensable. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No Sni https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Sni CRL.OP.No.18275 of 2026 14-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis