Allowed

S.Dhanasekharen v. K.B.Kumar

Madras HC28 Mar 2022CRL OP/6035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court relied on a filed Memorandum of Understanding showing an amicable settlement between petitioners and the respondent regarding a real estate and loan dispute.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur are quashed.

S.Dhanasekharen Vs K.B.Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6035 of 2022

¶6

S.Dhanasekharen, S/o.K.Sambandha Chettiayar 2. Sasirekha, W/o.S.Dhanasekharen

¶7

... Petitioners / Accused

¶8

¶9

K.B.Kumar, S/o.S.Bashyam

¶10

... Respondent / Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur for the offence under Section 420 of IPC based on the Memo of Compromise/Memo of Understanding dated 09.12.2021.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.G.R.Hari For Respondent : Mr.R.Ashwin

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶15

The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶16

A Memorandum of Understanding has been filed before this Court, which have been signed by the petitioners and the second

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

respondent/defacto complainant. The petitioners and the second respondent are also present in person before this Court and they were identified by the Inspector of Police, T-13 Kunrathur Police Station, Chennai - 69. This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. A Memorandum of Understanding filed by the petitioners and the respondent is extracted hereunder:-

¶19

''Whereas the party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part has been dealing in real estate business. From the year 2008 onwards the party of the First Part and his agent agreed to arrange lands for the sale to the 2nd party's real estate business and received amounts in advance. Apart from that whenever the 2nd party required funds to run his business, by creating registered Mortgage Deeds in respect of the 2nd parties properties, by obtaining power of attorney and also on the footing of payment receipts the 1st party has issued loans to the 2nd party.

¶20

Whereas during this transaction in some documents the name of the Village has been typed incorrectly and hence it was made the 2nd party to cancel the power of attorney, which created misunderstanding among the parties and ended in filing criminal complaint and the same is pending.

¶21

Whereas now at the intervention of the elders and well wishers the misunderstanding erupted among the parties has been solved amicably and the First Party has agreed to withdraw all the cases including the criminal case pending in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur.

¶22

Whereas after verifying the accounts it was amicably agreed and accepted by the 1st party to withdraw the criminal case pending in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur forthwith.

¶23

Whereas it is also mutually agreed and accepted that in future neither the Party of the First Part or the Party of the Second Part have any manner of claim against each other.

¶24

Whereas the Mortgages created by the 1st person of the Party of the First Part as agent of

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

his father Shri.K.Sambandam Chettiar had also cancelled as the principal and interest had already been settled to the party of the First Part and the subject matter of the said mortgage property had already been sold with the consent and knowledge of the 1st party and hence there is no manner of claim as against each parties.

¶27

Whereas the Party of the 1st Part had handed over or agreed to handover all the documents retained by him during the above transactions.

¶28

Both parties undertakes to withdraw any manner of cases, complaints, claims pending against each other forthwith. In default the parties are at liberty to produce this Memorandum to the concerned Court/Authorities and to have the cases/complaints/claims dismissed.

¶29

In witness whereof the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part has signed this deed of Memorandum of Understanding on the day month year above written."

¶30

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 pending, even though, the offence involved is compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 -(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quash the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019.

¶31

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur is quashed and the Memorandum of Understanding shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶32

(*)Herein enclosed the xerox copy of the Memo of understanding

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

arb/rgm

¶38

¶39

The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. 2. -do through- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, T-13 Kunrathur Police Station, Chennai - 69. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +2ccs to Mr.G.R.Hari , Advocate, S.R.No.20790

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.6035 of 2022

¶41

RK[co] NSK 19/04/2022

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Dhanasekharen v. K.B.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dhanasekharen v. K.B.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Thirunavukarasar Vs State Rep by Its

K.Athilakshmi Vs Sub Inspector of Police

V.Mullaivendhan Vs the District Public Prosecutor

Vijayakar Packiaraj Vs State Rep by

Varaaki Vs State Industries Promotion

Rathinarajan Vs Superintendent of Police