G.V. ADHIMOOLAM & ORS.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2484 : 2025 INSC 681

                       G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors.
                                   v.
                     The Inspector of Police & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2025)
                                 04 April 2025
               [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the High
       Court rejecting the petition of the appellants seeking quashing of
       complaint against them.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
       complaint – Complainant transferred certain sum of money
       to bank account of the firm run by his brother-accused no.5
       and certain sum given in cash to appellants-accused, for
       the car dealership business – However, the complainant
       not made partner despite assurance and huge investment
       made by him – Complainant and his companions went to
       the house of appellants where accused-appellants tried to
       assault and verbally abuse them – FIR lodged by complainant
       for the offences punishable u/ss.420, 342, 294(b) and 506(1)
       IPC – Petition by appellants seeking quashing of complaint –
       Rejected by the High Court – Sustainability:
       Held: Not sustainable – Instant case is wherein the proceedings
       of the impugned FIR are manifestly frivolous and vexatious or
       instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance –
       Impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against
       the accused-appellants are quashed as the same tantamount to a
       gross abuse of the process of law – FIR was lodged with a gross
       delay of more than 6 years in which no explanation forthcoming –
       Even from the admitted contents of the FIR, no allegation that
       any of the accused-appellants induced the complainant to invest
       in their car dealership business – Parties are closely related to
       each other and that the amount was admittedly transferred by the
       complainant to the account of the firm, which is run by his elder
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            2485

        G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


     brother, 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 –
     Allegation of the complainant regarding the incident of verbal
     abuse, hurting of religious sentiments and criminal intimidation and
     wrongful restraint also unbelievable since all these acts admittedly
     happened in the house of the accused where the complainant and
     his family members had gone, thus, the accused-appellants had
     no reason whatsoever to indulge in such acts – These allegations
     nothing but exaggerations which complainant employed in order to
     wreak vengeance against the accused – Thus, the order passed
     by the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 342,
     420, 506(1). [Paras 30-34]

                              Case Law Cited
     Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 8 SCC 734 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Income
     Tax Act, 1961.

                             List of Keywords
     Quashing of complaint; Scuffle; Hurling profanities; Assault; Abuse;
     Fraudulently usurped money; Allurement to invest in business;
     Gross delay in filing FIR; Entangle in criminal case; Verbal
     exchanges in heat of the moment; Ploy of complainant; Words
     and verbal slangs; Manifestly frivolous and vexatious proceedings;
     Ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance; Gross abuse of process
     of law.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1797 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 14850 of 2019
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 1798 of 2025
2486                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


                                   Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash,
       Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin
       Selvam, Alagiri K.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu
       Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal
       Tyagi, Danish Saifi.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
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.
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


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”.
6    For short, ‘complainant’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2487

        G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


     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. 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
     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 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.
2488                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


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.
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, 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-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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2489

         G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


      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.
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 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 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.



7   For short, “IPC”.
2490                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


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 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.
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 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                    2491

        G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


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
    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 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 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
2492                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     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.
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 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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         2493

        G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


     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 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 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.
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


8   (2023) 8 SCC 734.
2494                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    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
         (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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            2495

          G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.


            leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as
            the materials collected in the course of investigation. . .”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

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.
     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 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.
2496                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


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.
35. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain