Madras High Court
Mr.Cho Young Youn vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025
and
CRL MP.No.308 of 2025
Mr.Cho Young Youn ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
DCB, Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. Mrs.Jayammal ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the criminal proceedings in CC
No.134 of 2020 on the file of Honourable Judicial Magistrate,
Kancheepuram and quash the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Public Prosecutor
(Criminal Side)
(For R1 & R2)
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in CC No.134 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the first and second respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Korean citizen and is arrayed as A2 in the present case, and the final report has been filed against him for the alleged offence under Section 406, 420 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code. The crux of the case, as could be seen from the final report, is that the petitioner, along with A1, had established a company by name Shin Hung Electronic India Private Limited. The said company is stated to have given a work order to the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025 defacto complainant for the purpose of construction of a factory building.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that an agreement was entered into between A1 and the defacto complainant for a total contract value of Rs.3,77,83,615/-. Pursuant to the said work order, the defacto complainant had executed and completed the construction work as per the agreement. However, only a sum of Rs.2,85,74,695/- was paid by the accused, and the balance amount of Rs.69,86,950/- was not paid in spite of several demands made by the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint before the respondent police.
5. On perusal of the final report and the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that the entire transaction is purely contractual in nature and arises out of a commercial arrangement between A1 and the defacto complainant. The materials on record clearly reveal that the agreement was entered into solely by A1, who was also the signatory to the cheques issued towards the balance amount. The grievance of the defacto complainant is only with regard to the non-payment of the remaining amount, which itself does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 406 IPC in the absence of any dishonest intention from the inception. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025
6. The statement of the witnesses further discloses that A2, the present petitioner, had not signed any of the documents, nor is there any material to show that he was involved in the transaction. Merely because the petitioner was working under A1 in the same company, he has been implicated in the present case. Absolutely no material has been produced to establish the ingredients of the alleged offence as against the petitioner.
7. The final report was filed as early as in the year 2010 and, till date, no effective progress has been made in the case. A1 is stated to be gone to Korea, the petitioner’s passport has been impounded, thereby preventing him from travelling to his native country. The defacto complainant has also not appeared before the Court and his whereabouts are not known.
8. Considering the above facts and the absence of any material against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 406 IPC, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025
9. Accordingly, the final report as against the petitioner in CC No.134 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, stands quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.10.2025 kak Neutral Citation:Yes/No To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kak Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2025 09.10.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:01 pm )