Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Kishore Kumar vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of on 12 August, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                       CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 12-08-2025

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                            CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025
                                                    AND
                                           CRL MP NO. 12451 OF 2025
                R.Kishore Kumar

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of
                Police,
                R.S.Puram police station, (Cyber
                crime), Coimbatore district.

                2.Dhinesh

                                                                                       Respondent(s)

                PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal

                Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the C.C.No.117/2025 on the

                file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, coimbatore dated 30.11.2024 and to

                quash the same.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm )
                                                                                           CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025




                                  For Petitioner(s):       Mr.P.Vijendran

                                  For Respondent(s):       Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor for
                                                           R1
                                                           No appearance for R2



                                                             ORDER

Challenging the final report filed against the petitioner (A2) and others for the offences under Sections 43(i), 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, which has been taken on file in C.C.No.117 of nd 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore, the 2 accused has filed the present quash petition.

2.It is the case of the de facto complainant namely Dhinesh that he is running a skin clinic in the name and style of “ADVGRO Hair & ADVGLO Skin Aesthetic Clinic” at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. The 1st accused is the Regional Manager of the said Clinic. The 2nd accused, the petitioner herein, is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm ) CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025 the franchisee of the Company's Salem Branch. The 3rd accused is the Chief Operation Officer of Chennai Branch of the Company. It is the allegation of the de facto complainant that, in the year 2023, all the three accused have conspired and have stolen the clients' data from the computers belonging to the de facto complainant's Company for illegal gratification and with the data, they have opened a new clinic namely “Aura Aesthetic Clinic” in the same area and created loss to the de facto complainant's Company. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent Police and based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.364 of 2023. After investigation and collecting statements and materials, the Investigation Officer has filed a final report dated 30.11.2024 against the petitioner and others, for the offences under Sections 43(i), 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, which has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore in C.C.No.117 of 2025, challenging which the present petition has been filed by A2.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm ) CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner (A2) is only a franchisee in respect of the de facto complainant's Company's Coimbatore Branch, by way of a Franchise Agreement dated 14.04.2022, and he is no way connected with the theft of data.

4.I have perused the entire final report. I have also perused the CD file. A perusal of all the statements given by the witnesses and the investigation done in this regard makes it clear that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner (A2) and the other accused persons with regard to the theft of data maintained by the de facto complainant's Company. One Velusamy, who was examined as witness, has stated that the theft was based on the idea given by the petitioner (A2). Besides, there are also statements given by the witnesses to the effect that, apart from theft of data, cash is also stolen from the de facto complainant's Company. It is seen that the Investigation Officer has also seized the computers/gadgets involved in the offence and sent the same to Forensic Sciences Department and the Expert's report is awaited. Normally, the report https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm ) CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025 would be sent to the learned Magistrate directly. In any event, when there are incriminating statements and materials collected by the Investigation Officer during investigation, the validity of the such statements cannot be probed into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When there are incriminating materials against the accused, it is for the accused to prove his innocence by adducing oral and documentary evidence during the course of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has time and again held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint or the criminal proceeding, only sparingly, if and only if the complaint or the materials collected in support of the same, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. When there are sufficient materials to make out an offence as against the petitioner (A2), this Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini-trial in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103, to find out the correctness of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm ) CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025 statements of the witnesses at this stage.

5.Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12-08-2025 mkn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Puram police station, (Cyber Crime), Coimbatore district.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm ) CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

mkn CRL OP No. 18697 of 2025 12-08-2025 12-08-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 04:49:54 pm )