In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a young Puducherry resident, G. Prasad Raghavan, who was accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy in a land fraud case allegedly committed by his father. The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi found that the appellant had been a minor when the disputed transaction occurred and had played no role in it.
Background
The case began when a woman named Amutha lodged a complaint in 2022 with the CBCID, Puducherry, alleging that one Gunasekaran - Raghavan’s father - had deceived her into paying ₹92 lakh for a non-existent land deal. According to the complaint, Gunasekaran claimed ownership of a vacant plot, executed an unregistered sale agreement in 2015, and received large sums of money but never transferred the property.
The police later added Raghavan, Gunasekaran’s son, as Accused No. 2, alleging that he registered the same land in his name in 2022 despite knowing of his father’s fraudulent conduct. Both father and son sought discharge before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, but their plea was rejected. The Madras High Court also dismissed their revision petition in 2024, prompting Raghavan to approach the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court carefully traced the timeline and found that the key events - the misrepresentation and payments - occurred in 2015-2016, when Raghavan was still a minor. The bench noted that “no representation or inducement was made by the appellant, nor was any payment ever made to him.”
The Court also stressed that simply buying the property years later from one’s father does not automatically imply criminal intent. “When the transaction took place between the informant and the accused No. 1, the appellant was a minor. Hence, the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust are not made out against him,” the bench observed.
It further criticised the lower courts for refusing to discharge the student despite the absence of any direct allegation or evidence. The Court made it clear that a trial court should not conduct a “roving inquiry” or assume guilt merely on association, especially when the material on record shows no active involvement.
Decision
Concluding that the proceedings against Raghavan were baseless, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of both the Madras High Court and the Puducherry trial court. It allowed the appeal and ordered that the criminal case arising from FIR No. 0032 of 2022, including the charge-sheet, be set aside as far as the appellant is concerned.
With this, the apex court brought relief to the young appellant who had been facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 294(b), and 506 of the IPC - charges that the Court ultimately found unsustainable.
Case: G. Prasad Raghavan vs Union Territory of Puducherry
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12380 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1221
Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025