Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Buyer Who Was Minor at Time of Original Fraud

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi heard an appeal by G. Prasad Raghavan against the Madras High Court’s dismissal of his criminal revision challenging the trial court’s refusal to discharge him under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The appeal arose from a chargesheet filed in connection with an FIR alleging cheating and related offences in respect of a land transaction.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the trial court and High Court orders insofar as they related to the appellant, finding that prima facie ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 were not made out against him. The Court emphasised that the alleged fraudulent representation and payments between the informant and the primary accused had occurred in 2015–2016, at which time the appellant was a minor, and that there was no allegation that he had made any representation or received payments in respect of that transaction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the record, it further transpires that now 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. 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." The Court also noted that "there is no material placed on record from which it can be said that the appellant herein has committed the alleged offences" and accordingly allowed the discharge application filed by the appellant.

Background The informant, Ms. Amutha, lodged FIR No. 0032 on 13.10.2022 accusing the original accused (Gunasekaran) of cheating under Section 420 IPC in relation to a vacant plot. She alleged that in 2015 she entered into an unregistered sale agreement and paid substantial sums (cash and cheques totalling several lakhs) to the original accused, who later failed to execute the sale deed and gave inconsistent replies about title. The investigating agency charged both the original accused and the appellant (son of the original accused) under Sections 420, 406, 294(b), 506(i) IPC read with Section 34. The chargesheet alleged that in 2022 the original accused obtained a power of attorney from the registered owners and executed a sale deed transferring the property to his son (the appellant) for Rs. 60,00,000, and that the appellant had no independent means to purchase the property.

The appellant and the original accused jointly sought discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.; the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on 15.03.2024. A criminal revision before the Madras High Court (Criminal Revision No. 1430 of 2024) was dismissed on 15.04.2025. The appellant then obtained special leave and approached this Court. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the transaction and any representations occurred in 2015 when the appellant was a minor and had no role in inducing the informant, so the ingredients of the charged offences were not attracted. The respondent contended that the appellant purchased the property in 2022 as an adult and that sufficient material existed to proceed.

The Supreme Court examined the chronology and material in the chargesheet and witness statements, held that the only link alleged against the appellant was his 2022 purchase, and found that the essential elements of cheating or criminal breach of trust were not made out against him. The Court emphasised that a court on a Section 239 petition could not be deprived of a proper prima facie inquiry but must also assess whether any material existed to proceed; finding none, it quashed the trial court and High Court orders insofar as they concerned the appellant, allowed his discharge petition, and quashed the proceedings and chargesheet against him. No other accused were disposed of by the present order. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings against the appellant were quashed and set aside.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 12380 of 2025 Case Title: G. PRASAD RAGHAVAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Senior counsel for petitioner; specific names not recorded in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Senior counsel for respondent; specific names not recorded in the judgment]