Tara Gulecha Vs State Rep by

2.Shankar Babu, S/o . Krishnamurthy, Respondent(s) Director of M/s. Idea Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, First Floor, No. 6/16, Bagavadas Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600045.

¶19

1/8

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

CRL OP Nos.17595 of 2023 & 22939 of 2025

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.22939 of 2025

¶23

Alok Kumar Gulechha, s/o. Mool Raj Jain, Partner of M/s .Anmol Housing Corporation, No.2/3, Vedhantha Desikar Street, Palathope, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004.

¶24

Petitioner(s)

¶25

Vs

¶26

State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCB No.I, Chennai. 2.Shankar Babu, S/o . Krishnamurthy, Director of M/s. Idea Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, First Floor, No. 6/16, Bagavadas Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600045.

¶27

Respondent(s)

¶28

PRAYER in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶29

Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to Call for the records and Quash the proceedings in Crime No. 68 of 2023 on the file of the 1st Respondent .

¶30

For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz in both Crl.O.Ps For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan , in both Crl.O.Ps Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1

¶31

2/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRL OP Nos.17595 of 2023 & 22939 of 2025

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the Crime

¶36

No.68 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent for the offence under

¶37

sections 120(b), 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶38

2 . The complaint has been lodged by the second respondent. The crux of

¶39

the allegation is that the petitioners have deliberately failed to refund a sum of

¶40

Rs.6,59,57,000/- as directed under the Arbitration .

¶41

3 . The petitioners and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this

¶42

Court and they were identified by their respective counsel .

¶43

4. The defacto complainant himself appeared before this Court and stated

¶44

before this Court that during the pendency of the above proceedings, all the

¶45

disputes and differences between him and petitioners have been amicably

¶46

settled and hence, he does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings.

¶47

3/8

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

CRL OP Nos.17595 of 2023 & 22939 of 2025

¶50

He has also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise entered between himself and the

¶51

petitioners to that effect.

¶52

5. T he learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

¶53

first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise

¶54

while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the

¶55

offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be

¶56

quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

¶57

6 . The main issue that requires for consideration of this Court is as to

¶58

whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-

¶59

compoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme

¶60

Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath,

¶61

reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

¶62

Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to quash non-

¶63

4/8

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

CRL OP Nos.17595 of 2023 & 22939 of 2025

¶66

compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that

¶67

the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

¶68

In the present case, the offences in question are purely

¶69

individual/personal in nature. It involves the money dispute between the

¶70

petitioners and the second respondent and quashing the proceedings, will not

¶71

affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be

¶72

served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.68 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent i n exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶73

5/8

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

CRL OP Nos.17595 of 2023 & 22939 of 2025

¶76

Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the

¶77

First Information Report registered in Crime No.68 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed. The Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶78

closed.

¶79

28-08-2025

¶80

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶81

mrp

¶82

To

¶83

1.State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCB No.I, Chennai.