G.V. ADHIMOOLAM & ORS. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2484 · Decided: 04-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Branc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.