Sasikumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

The case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant purchased a property situated in Tambaram Taluk, Kottivakkam Village, Nehru Nagar 1^st Main Road bearing Plot No. 189 comprised in S.No. 317/70B measuring to an extent of 3600 sq. ft vide sale deed dated 01.02.2007 registered as document No. 174/2007 from one C. Kalpagam and on 28.08.2013, when the de facto complainant inspected the property, he found that fencing was removed and some construction activities were going on. After enquiry and on obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate, it was found that one Tamilmani (A1), who is the power agent of one Rani(A2) had created forged documents and sold the property to Sasikumar (A3) through his power agent Thangavelu (A4) under Document No. 111 of 2007. Further, the property was mortgaged with Karur Vysya Bank and loan of Rs.55,00,000/- availed. Hence, complaint lodged. On completion of investigation, respondent Police filed final report listing 10 witnesses and documents.

¶26

2\12

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶29

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is

¶30

that petitioners are innocent purchasers. They did not create any forged documents and cheated the de facto complainant. In this case, de facto complainant had filed a Civil Suit in O.S. NO. 103 of 2015 before the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in which apart from petitioners, the Manager of Karur Vysya Bank was also a defendant. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 25.04.2025 pursuant to compromise entered between de facto complainant and petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the judgment and decree, the same has been registered in Document No. 3307 of 2025 before SRO, Adyar. Now, the encumbrance created removed and the de facto complainant put in possession of the property.

¶31

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st respondent submitted that in this case, the prime accused are A1 and A2 and petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The petitioners were not aware about the creation of any forged documents.

¶32

5 . Now, that the de facto complainant has been put in possession of the property pursuant to the compromise entered between him and petitioners and the issue has been amicably settled, de facto complainant does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the

¶33

3\12

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶36

proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo filed.

¶37

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by E. Bindhu, SSI 20905, CCB Chennai LFIW-I, Gamma-3.

¶38

On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant,

¶39

who is present confirmed that petitioners are innocent purchasers and has no

¶40

objection for quashing the case as against these two petitioners alone, who are A3 and A4.

¶41

8 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed this

¶42

Court that the role of the petitioners is distinct from that of A1 and A2 and

¶43

hence, compromise not effected as against A1 and A2.

¶44

The Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated

¶45

03.02.2026 is scanned and reproduced below:

¶46

4\12

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶49

5\12

¶50

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

¶51

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶52

6\12

¶53

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

¶54

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶55

7\12

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶58

8\12

¶59

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

¶60

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶61

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

¶62

11. The main 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 petitioners. 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 non-compoundable 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 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.

¶63

12. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and

¶64

9\12

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶67

the second respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners alone in C.C.No.4951 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB cases and CBCID Metro Cases Court, Egmore, Chennai , in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶68

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.4951 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB cases and CBCID Metro Cases Court, Egmore, Chennai is quashed as against the petitioners alone. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶69

14. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

10.04.2026

nv

10\12

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

¶74

Crl.O.P. No. 7959 of 2026

¶75

To