Harish L Metha Vs State by

K.Manoharan Executive Trustee, M/s.Tamil Nadu Chemist and Druggists Education Trust, Having Office at No.2/35, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600 097.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

CRL OP No. 15052 of 2026

R.Vasanthalakshmi

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

State by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell-I, Vepery, Chennai-07.

¶20

__________Page 1 of 11

¶21

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

¶22

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶23

2. K.Manoharan

¶24

Executive Trustee, M/s.Tamil Nadu Chemist and Druggists Education Trust, Having Office at No.2/35, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600 097.

¶25

..Respondent(s)

¶26

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶27

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records and quash the CC.No.6549 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB and CBCID Metro cases, at Egmore, Chennai.

¶28

CRL OP No. 15052 of 2026

¶29

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records and Quash the C.C.No.6549 of 2023 on the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate For Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, at Egmore, Chennai.

¶30

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶31

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Nagarajan in both petitions For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 in both petitions

¶32

Mr.S.K.Chandrasekaran for R2 in both petitions

¶33

__________Page 2 of 11

¶34

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

¶35

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.15030 of 2026 (A1 and A2) and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15052 of 2026 (A3), facing trial in C.C.No.6549 of 2023 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate For Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, at Egmore, Chennai, have filed the present quash petitions.

¶38

2.The case of the prosecution is that, to construct a Pharma College in the name and style of M/s.C.L.Baid Metha College of Pharmacy, one Manikchand Metha and C.L.Metha @ C.Lakshmichand Metha donated a property to an extent of 30 Grounds, bearing S.No.405/5, situated at Ookiyam, Thoraipakkam Village, Chengalpattu District, in favour of M/s.Tamil Nadu Chemists & Druggists Educational Trust ( de facto complainant herein) by way of Settlement Deed bearing Doc.No.1868 of 1981 dated 10.10.1980. After demise of C.L.Metha on 17.06.1995, without the knowledge of the de facto complainant Trust, A1 and A2 along with others, claiming themselves as legal heirs of C.L.Metha, had executed registered Power of Attorney dated 14.11.2005, 15.11.2005 and 16.11.2005 in favour of one M.S.Rajaram, dealing with 15 Grounds of the property which was already settled by C.L.Metha in favour of the Trust. Thereafter, the Power Agent has sold the said 15 Grounds of the property in favour of A3 and A4 by registered sale deed dated 11.04.2007. A3 and A4 have subsequently sold a portion of the property to third parties.

¶39

__________Page 3 of 11

¶40

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

¶41

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶42

Further, A1 and A2 and others, claiming as legal heirs of C.L.Metha, have also executed a registered Exchange Deed dated 15.04.2006 with M/s.Tamil Nadu Educational and Medical Team Trust, exchanging 17.30 Grounds of the subject property in S.No.405/5 with M/s.Tamil Nadu Educational and Medical Team Trust’s property situated in R.S.No.405/1A & B part to an extent of 17.32 Grounds. Since the legal heirs of C.L.Metha had dealt with the property already settled in favour of the de facto complainant Trust by C.L.Metha, the de facto complainant Trust lodged a complaint with the 1^st respondent Police. Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.68 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC as against the petitioners and others. After investigation, the 1^st respondent Police had filed a final report as against A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 120(b) IPC, which was taken on file in C.C.No.6549 of 2023 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate For Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, at Egmore, Chennai.

¶43

3 .By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶44

4.Accordingly, A1, A2 and A4 have filed the present quash petitions along with a joint memorandum of compromise, dated 05.06.2026, stating that the parties are willing to settle the matter and compound the offences. The

¶45

__________Page 4 of 11

¶46

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

¶47

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶48

memo in Crl.O.P.No.15030 of 2026 is scanned and extracted hereunder :

¶49

__________Page 5 of 11

¶50

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

¶51

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶52

__________Page 6 of 11

¶53

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

¶54

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶55

__________Page 7 of 11

¶56

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

¶57

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶58

5.It is submitted that A3, namely T.Ragunandana, has been discharged

¶59

from the case by the trial Court by order dated 03.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.67191 of 2024.

¶60

6.Today, the petitioners (A1, A2 and A4) and the 2^nd respondent / de facto complainant are present before this Court and they are identified by Mr.G.Masilamani, Sub-Inspector of Police, CCB, Chennai-7. The parties have expressed their willingness to compromise the matter and compound the offences pending against the accused. They have also filed individual affidavits to that effect.

¶61

7.One important issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 , has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash noncompoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that 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

¶62

__________Page 8 of 11

¶63

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

¶64

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶65

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

¶66

8.However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual in nature and the parties themselves have now come forward to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. After exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10) , this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the accused.

¶67

9.In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6549 of 2023 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate For Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, at Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties and the individual affidavits filed by the parties in both the petitions shall form part of the records.

¶68

18-06-2026

¶69

MKN

¶70

__________Page 9 of 11

¶71

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

¶72

CRL OP No. 15030 of 2026

¶73

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