Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 28 Oct 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Multiple individuals (e.g., Indirajit Sengupta, Dipakkumar Manharlal Mehta, Deepak Krishnan Tewari, Prasad Vinayak Bapat, Fur Lung Hsieh, Jiub Ming Lee, A.S. Jayaseelan, Balaji, Seshadri Rajappan, K.P. Mohan Kumar, S. Sudharsan, Kaliamurthy Rajavel, etc.) filed Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.OP.No.33143 of 2025, 4193, 4778, 6164, 6225 & 6797 of 2026) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) seeking quash of FIR No.98 of 2025.
- Respondents: The State of Tamil Nadu (represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Avadi City, Chennai) and B. Subramanyan.
- FIR No.98 of 2025 (registered by the first respondent) alleges offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS relating to fraudulent release of 90 containers containing PVC resin valued at approximately Rs 15 crore.
- Alleged facts: The de‑facto complainant (shipper) shipped PVC resin from Tianjin Xingang and Qingdao, China, to Kattupalli, Tamil Nadu via carriers M/s. MSC Agency India Pvt Ltd, M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt Ltd and M/s. T.S. Lines (India) Pvt Ltd. The containers were imported by M/s. Rishab Triexim LLP and M/s. Kanchan Polymers and taken to the Container Freight Station (CFS) owned by M/s. Sical Multimodal and Rail Transport Ltd (SMART).
- Standard procedure requires importers to produce original bills of lading to obtain delivery orders from carriers; delivery orders are then presented to the CFS for release of goods.
- The shipper paid carriers, received bills of lading, but importers allegedly failed to pay for the goods, so original bills of lading remained with the shipper.
- Despite lack of original bills of lading and delivery orders, the CFS released the containers to importers; the shipper later learned of this via emails dated 12‑09‑2025 and 13‑09‑2025, the latter confirming erroneous release.
- Accused Nos. 1‑4 (carriers/liners) are alleged to have fabricated documents and delivery orders; Accused Nos. 5‑9 (directors/officers of Wan Hai Lines) and Nos. 10‑14 (directors/officers of T.S. Lines) are alleged to have colluded in the same conspiracy.
- Accused Nos. 15‑18 (directors/officers of SICAL) are alleged to have released 82 containers without proper documents and to have opened eight containers, removing contents and falsifying internal records.
- Accused Nos. 19‑21 (partners of importing entities) are alleged to have forged documents, obtained delivery orders without payment, and taken delivery of 82 containers, including misappropriation of contents of eight containers.
- Petitioners’ counsel (Senior Counsel Hasan Mohamed Jinnah) argued that the carriers could not be held liable because the CFS released cargo without delivery orders, and that the loss was due to importers’ non‑payment.
- Counsel for petitioners in petitions 6164, 6225 and 4778 contended that Accused No. 18 (director of SMART) had no role, that allegations were vague, and that the dispute was essentially civil, with civil proceedings already pending in the United Kingdom.
- The Court examined the submissions, noted that the FIR alleges fraudulent issuance of delivery orders and unauthorised release of containers, and that the allegations, taken as a whole, disclose prima facie cognizable offences.
- The Court cited Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra) emphasizing that quashing of an FIR is an exception and that the court should not delve into merits at the pleading stage.
Final Outcome
- The Madras High Court declined to quash FIR No.98 of 2025, finding that the complaint discloses prima facie cognizable offences warranting investigation.
- All six Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed.
- The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
- The investigation by the Central Crime Branch, Avadi City, Chennai, is to continue as per law.
Topics: Court Order, Trade Fraud, Logistics