Allowed¶40

Kannan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Jan 2025CRL OP(MD)/15953/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash of FIR on joint compromise memo; non-compoundable offences quashed after amicable settlement; Sections 406, 420, 423, 506(i), 120(b) IPC; petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita; Crime No.8 of 2024, DCB Sivagangai; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M. Nirmal Kumar J.; decided 29.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police quashed as against the petitioners; the terms of the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. ¶40

Kannan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police quashed as against the petitioners; the terms of the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024, pending before the first respondent Police, can be quashed as against the petitioners in view of the parties' amicable settlement, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶39

Court's answer

The High Court has power to quash the complaint even if the offences are non-compoundable in nature, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the guidelines issued in the Apex Court judgments of Gian Singh (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, and given the parties' amicable settlement (with the petitioners having settled the entire amount to the second and third respondents), no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024 pending, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶39

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and, as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police are quashed as against the petitioners, the terms of the joint compromise memo forming part and parcel of the order.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15953 of 2024 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, M. Nirmal Kumar J., 29.01.2025): Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, DCB, Sivagangai, registered on the second respondent's complaint for offences under Sections 406, 420, 423, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC, arising out of a real-estate investment dispute in which monies and interest were allegedly not returned and threats allegedly made. With the case still under investigation, the parties executed a Joint Memo of Compromise, the petitioners having settled the entire amount to the second and third respondents; the Court enquired and satisfied itself of the settlement. Holding that the High Court has power to quash a complaint even where the offences are non-compoundable, considering the facts and circumstances, and acting in the light of the guidelines in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the proceedings pending and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR as against the petitioners, the compromise memo forming part and parcel of the order.

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15953 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.15953 of 2024

¶7

1.Kannan

¶8

2Anandhi

¶9

3.Keshavan

¶10

4.Ravi @ Ravichandran

¶11

5.Indhirani

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police, DCB, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. (In Crime No.8 of 2024)

¶15

2.Raja

¶16

3.Varatharajan ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition - filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.8 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.AK.Azagar Sami For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 & R3 : Mr.Srikanth

¶19

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

¶20

1/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15953 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.8 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶24

2 . The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are running real estate business and the defacto complainant is running a jewelry shop. The defacto complainant and his friend invested huge amount in the petitioner's company. However, the petitioners neither returned the money nor gave any interest for the said amount. When defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioners are said to have threatened the second and third respondents herein.

¶25

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.8 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 423, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC.

¶26

4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dispute amicably among themselves.

¶27

2/5

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15953 of 2024

¶29

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court,

¶30

which has been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.D.Ruba, SSI of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶31

6 . In the instant case, the petitioners have settled the entire amount

¶32

to the second and third respondents. Now the parties have compromised the matter amicably. The High Court has power to quash the complaint even if the offences are non compoundable in nature, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

7 . The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶34

case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15953 of 2024

¶38

8 . In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said

¶39

Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024, pending before the first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

¶40

9 . Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and

¶41

as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed as against the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶42

29.01.2025

¶43

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶44

¶45

¶46