CRL OP/8354/2026 of M/s. Belair Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs State by, The Inspector of Police
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.8354 of 2026:
M/s.Belair Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By its Director,
Old No.140-A, New No..94,
Luz Church Road, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600002. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.STATE BY: Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Metro Wing,
Egmore, Chennai-600008.
(Crime No.3 of 2013).
2.R.Vasu
3.Saralavasu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Criminal Appeal
C.A.No.190 of 2024 pending on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai and set aside the conviction order dated 15.02.2024 passed in
C.C.No.3018 of 2017 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Page No.1 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Chennai based on the compromise arrived at between the defacto complainant
and petitioner/appellant dated 18.12.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Divakar
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted by
Ms.Harshana.T
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Manuraj
Crl.O.P.No.9335 of 2026:
Chandini Srinivasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.STATE BY: Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Metro Wing,
Egmore, Chennai-600008.
(Crime No.3 of 2013).
2.R.Vasu
3.Saralavasu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Criminal Appeal
C.A.No.191 of 2024 pending on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai and set aside the conviction order dated 15.02.2024 passed in
C.C.No.3018 of 2017 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Page No.2 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Chennai based on the compromise arrived at between the defacto complainant
and petitioner/appellant dated 18.12.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Divakar
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted by
Ms.Harshana.T
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Manuraj
Crl.O.P.No.9337 of 2026:
Aravind Srinivasan, Male Aged 63 Years,
Son of Calambur Srinivasan,
Managing Director,
M/s.Belair Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
Old No.140-A, New No.94,
Luz Church Road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600004. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.STATE BY: Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Metro Wing,
Egmore, Chennai-600008.
(Crime No.3 of 2013).
2.R.Vasu
3.Saralavasu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Criminal Appeal
C.A.No.192 of 2024 pending on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil
Page No.3 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Court, Chennai and set aside the conviction order dated 15.02.2024 passed in
C.C.No.3018 of 2017 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai based on the compromise arrived at between the defacto complainant
and petitioner/appellant dated 18.12.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Divakar
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted by
Ms.Harshana.T
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Manuraj
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026 are A1, A2 &
A3 in C.C.No.3018 of 2017.
2.Since all three petitions arise out of common judgment in
C.C.No.3018 of 2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for
exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and
CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, this Court by way of common order disposes
these petitions.
Page No.4 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
3.For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to as accused,
as per their ranks in the judgment dated 15.02.2024 in C.C.No.3018 of 2017
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB
Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases,
Chennai. The conviction and sentence in C.C.No.3018 of 2017 are as follows:
S.No. Rank of the Accused Conviction and Sentence
1 A1 to A3 (i)To undergo six months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section
120(b) IPC.
(ii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 409
IPC.
(iii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 420
IPC.
2 A2 (i)To undergo two years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 465
IPC.
(ii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo six months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 467
IPC.
Page No.5 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
(iii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 471
r/w 467 IPC.
3 A1 & A3 (i)To undergo two years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 465
r/w 109 IPC.
(ii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo six months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 467
r/w 109 IPC.
(iii)To undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
in default to undergo three months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 471
r/w 467 r/w 109 IPC.
Challenging the same, A1 to A3 preferred appeals before the learned XXII
Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai (lower appellate Court) in
Crl.A.Nos.190, 191 & 192 of 2024. During the pendency of the appeals, A1 to
A3 entered into a compromise with the respondents 2 and 3. Since the
compromise not entertained by the lower appellate Court, present Criminal
Original Petitions filed.
Page No.6 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
4.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/the
respondents 2 and 3 approached by A2 in the year 2004 during opening of
share trading company viz., M/s.Belair Enterprises Private Limited/A1, which
subsequently changed as M/s.Belair Corporation Private Limited. A2
represented that they are sub agents of Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private
Limited, a share broking agency in Mumbai. The defacto complainant is
running a company in the name of M/s.Lexint Co. Steels Private Limited. A1
as authorised agent of Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited started
business in Chennai. The defacto complainant, along with his auditor
Sivakumar, met A2, who requested the defacto complainant to open share
trading account and assured A2 will manage all share market transactions and
regularly provide statements of accounts. Believing the representation, defacto
complainant executed a power of attorney authorising A1 to open and operate
the share trading account and to carry on business on his behalf. Subsequently,
A2 requested defacto complainant also to open share trading account in the
name of defacto complainant’s wife. Accordingly, the complainant’s wife
executed a power of attorney favouring A1 Company. After sometime, A2
informed defacto complainant that substantial investments required for share
trading business and promised he would arrange loan from A1 company.
Believing the same, the defacto complainant and his wife executed several
Page No.7 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
documents at the instance of A2. After September 2006, no statement of
account submitted by A2. Hence, the defacto complainant during March 2008
requested to stop all trading business in his name and his wife’s name,
contacted the main broker Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited and
collected details of share trading business account and found that the value of
the shares held by the defacto complainant and his wife was Rs.1.52 Crores.
Using off market option and misusing the power of attorney, A2 transferred an
amount of Rs.19 lakhs to his wife’s (A3) account, on the same day, A3
transferred the amount to the account of A2. To facilitate these transactions,
two forged letters dated 22.07.2008 (Exs.P18 & P19) created. Finding that the
accused committed offence of cheating and misappropriation using forged
documents, a complaint lodged and case in Crime No.438 of 2012 for offence
under Sections 406, 408, 418 & 420 registered by the Central Crime Branch on
17.08.2012, thereafter, the case closed as civil in nature and closure report
filed. Challenging the closure report, defacto complainant filed protest petition
and it was pending. In the meanwhile, a complaint sent to the Director
General of Police on 21.08.2013. On the orders of the Director General of
Police, the case entrusted to CBCID and a fresh case in Crime No.3 of 2013
for offence under Sections 406, 408, 418 & 420 IPC registered and charge
sheet filed in C.C.No.3546 of 2014. Challenging the same, the accused filed
Page No.8 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
quash application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15122 of 2015, and charge
sheet quashed by order dated 23.10.2017. Aggrieved over the same, it was
taken on appeal to the Hon’ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1563 of 2021. The
Hon’ble Apex Court finding that the trial already commenced, set aside the
quashing order and directed the trial to proceed. During trial, PW1 to PW10
examined and Exs.P1 to P50 marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court
convicted A1 to A3, against which, all three individuals preferred appeal
before lower appellate Court in Crl.A.Nos.190, 191 & 192 of 2024. During
the pendency of appeals, the issue between A1 to A3 and defacto complainant
resolved and joint memorandum of understanding along with the Joint
Memorandum of Compromise filed. Since the lower appellate Court not
entertained the same, present petitions filed.
5.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that
when it is found that the transaction between the accused and defacto
complainant is based on the authorisation given by the defacto complainant
and his wife (PW1 & PW2), the conviction of the trial Court is improper. Both
PW1 & PW2 admitted that they availed loan from A1 company and thereafter
executed power of attorney authorising A1 Company to purchase shares in
their name and for their benefit by investing in stock market. He further
Page No.9 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
submitted that the shares purchased provided as security against the loan and
in the event of default of loan by PW1 & PW2, the shares held by A1 were to
be utilised for recovery of outstanding loan. PW1 & PW2 admitted that their
shares were held as security for the loan advanced, hence, the transfer of
shares was in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement. He further
submitted that the total worth of the shares held was Rs.1,55,85,350/- and the
shares initially invested was to the extent of Rs.56,00,000/-.
6.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW1 & PW2 took
diametrically opposite and contrary stand which the trial Court failed to
consider. The allegation is that the signature of PW2 forged and a sum of
Rs.19,37,320/- transferred to the account of A3 and in turn, re-transferred to
the account of A2. The original letters (Exs.P18 & P19) forwarded to the
office of Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited at Mumbai and the
amount transferred only after verification of Exs.P18 & P19. In this case,
Exs.P18 & P19 are projected as forged letters. The originals of Exs.P18 & P19
not collected during investigation by the 1 st respondent Police. Added to it,
during earlier investigation by Central Crime Branch, the Forensic Expert gave
studied Exs.P18 & P19 photostat copies gave a report that no examination can
be conducted on photostat documents and no conclusive opinion given. On
Page No.10 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
the contrary, the trial Court on its own found Exs.P18 and P19 are forged, but
invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and convicting the accused for
the offence of forgery, is improper. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again
held that it is not appropriate for the Courts by itself coming to such
conclusion in the absence of forensic report. Further, no reason or explanation
given by the trial Court as to how the trial Court arrived at such conclusion
holding two letters (Exs.P18 & P19) as forged.
7.He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that A2 in
this case sent a legal notice on 16.07.2010 calling PW1 & PW2 to settle the
outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.2,26,09,835/-. The accused filed a civil suit
in C.S.No.224 of 2012 before this Court on 19.09.2011, thereafter, as a
counterblast, to wriggle out of the misdeeds and default in repayment, a
complaint lodged by the defacto complainant. Further the trial Court failed to
consider the admitted fact that the defacto complainant’s wife engaged the
accused in share trading business and availed loan from A1 company. It is not
in dispute that when the loan agreement executed by the defacto complainant
with A1, the defacto complainant and his wife borrowed Rs.75 lakhs and Rs.3
Crores respectively which is not seriously disputed, further there are loan
agreement and irrecoverable power of attorney executed by the defacto
Page No.11 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
complainant and his wife. The demat account of the defacto complainant and
his wife maintained by Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited,
Mumbai, Principal Broker and the accused are only sub brokers. He further
submitted that PW1 & PW2 involved in share trading from the year 2004 to
2008 and closed the account with the Principal Broker in the year 2009. Thus,
after filing of civil suit in 2012, the complaint lodged primarily on the ground
that A2 in a fraudulent manner transferred Rs.19,37,000/- to the account of A3
who in turn re-transferred to A2. This transfer is based on the forged letters
(Exs.P18 & P19).
8.He further submitted that when the protest petition was pending in
Crime No.438 of 2012 before the competent Court, without any authority and
awaiting judicial order, the Director General of Police by proceedings dated
21.08.2013 directing the CBCID to register a case based on the representation
of the defacto complainant and a case in Crime No.3 of 2013 registered by the
1st respondent Police, is improper and has no sanction of law. In a haste and
for obvious reasons, CBCID registered a case and filed charge sheet. The trial
Court completely glossed over these facts and failed to consider that the
dispute which is predominantly civil in nature given a criminal colour. After
the conviction, the accused filed appeals before the lower appellate Court. Be
Page No.12 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
that as it may, during the pendency of the appeals, the issue between the
accused and the respondents 2 and 3 resolved and compromise arrived at
between them. Hence, he sought quashing of the proceedings.
9.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st
respondent Police in all these petitions submitted that in the year 2004, A2
approached the defacto complainant to open a share trading account in A1
Company, namely M/s.Belair Enterprises Private Limited (subsequently
renamed M/s.Belair Corporation Private Limited) representing that A1 to A3
were sub-agents of Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited, a share
broking agency in Mumbai. The defacto complainant, who is running
M/s.Lexint Co. Steels Private Limited and his wife were induced to execute
power of attorney in favour of A1 to operate their share trading accounts. A2
assured to manage all share transactions and also arranged loans from A1
Company, pursuant to which, several documents executed by the defacto
complainant and his wife, but periodic statements not furnished from
September 2006. During March 2008, defacto complainant found that shares
worth about Rs.1.52 Crores held in their accounts, by misusing the power of
attorney, A2 transferred Rs.19 lakhs to A3, who in turn re-transferred the
amount to A2 all by using forged letters dated 22.07.2008 (Exs. P18 and P19).
Page No.13 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
On the complaint of defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.438 of 2012
registered by the Central Crime Branch for offence under Sections 406, 408,
418, and 420 IPC. The case later closed as civil in nature, against which,
protest petition filed and kept pending. In the meanwhile, on a complaint to
the Director General of Police dated 21.08.2013, on his orders fresh case in
Crime No.3 of 2013 registered by CBCID, charge sheet filed in C.C.No.3546
of 2014. During trial, PW1 to PW10 examined and Exs.P1 to P50 marked.
On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused, against which,
Crl.A.Nos.190, 191, and 192 of 2024 filed before the lower appellate Court.
During the pendency of appeals, the parties arrived at settlement and filed joint
memorandum of compromise. Hence, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
10.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is
seen that the dispute between the accused and defacto complainant arises out
of a share broking business. It is not in dispute that PW1 and PW2 opened
share trading account with A1 Company, managed by A2 and A3 who
functioned as sub-broker of Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited,
Mumbai. The share trading transactions carried out through demat account
maintained at the Mumbai office. PW1 and PW2 executed power of attorney
authorising A1 to carry out share trading business and also availed loan from
Page No.14 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
A1. The loan agreements marked as exhibits in this case. The finding of the
trial Court is that the default clause in the loan agreement was misinterpreted
and the accused in haste with ulterior motive transferred and misappropriated
amounts. The allegation of forgery pertains to Exs.P18 and P19, which are
admittedly photostat copies. Earlier, Forensic Expert opined that no
conclusive opinion could be given on the said photostat documents.
Admittedly, originals available with the Principal at Mumbai, no steps taken to
collect the originals of Exs.P18 & P19 and sent it for forensic examination. In
such circumstances, the trial Court, without giving reason arriving at a finding
Exs.P18 & P19 forged and convicting the accused, is not proper. In view of
the above, the conviction for forgery is not sustainable. After executing power
of attorney authorising A1 Company to handle the account, to do share trading
business, then making allegation of misappropriation and cheating is not also
sustainable.
11.It is seen that A1 filed a civil suit in C.S.No.424 of 2012 against the
defacto complainant and his wife to pay Rs.2,74,60,403/- with interest of
Rs.1,98,23,969/-. This suit now compromised and a memo of understanding
filed in C.S.No.424 of 2024. Recording the same, the suit decree as settled out
of Court in terms of memorandum of understanding. Scanned reproduction of
Page No.15 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
the judgment dated 11.02.2026 in C.S.No.424 of 2026 is as follows:
Page No.16 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.17 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
12.During the pendency of the appeals, the issue between the accused
and defacto complainant resolved and a memorandum of understanding dated
16.10.2021 entered between the accused and defacto complainant (PW1 &
PW2) along with Joint Memorandum of Compromise produced before the
lower appellate Court. But the lower appellate Court not entertained the same.
Scanned reproduction of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.10.2021
is as follows:
Page No.18 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.19 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.20 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.21 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.22 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.23 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
Page No.24 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
13.Added to it, the accused and the defacto complainant filed Joint
Compromise Affidavit and Joint Memorandum of Compromise before this
Court as well. It is to be seen that the dispute between accused and defacto
complainant is predominantly having civil flavour.
14.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in
keeping the criminal appeals filed before the lower appellate Court pending,
even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the
light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9
SCC 641- (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after
exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl
(10), this Court in exercise of its inherent power is inclined to set aside the
conviction of the trial Court.
15.In view of the above, invoking inherent powers, to secure ends of
justice, this Court records the compromise, compounds the offences, allows the
appeals in Crl.A.Nos.190, 191, and 192 of 2024 pending on the file of the
XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently, set asides
the judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2024 in C.C.No.3018 of 2017 passed
Page No.25 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB Cases
(relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai,
discharges accused/A1 to A3 from all charges. Fine amount paid by the
accused are ordered to be returned.
16.In the result, Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.
21.04.2026
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The XXII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate
for exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai)
and CBCID Metro Cases,
Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Metro Wing,
Egmore, Chennai-600008.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
Page No.26 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
PRE-DELIVERY ORDERS IN
Crl.O.P.Nos.8354, 9335 & 9337 of 2026
21.04.2026
Page No.27 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis