Elumalai Vs State Rep. by Station House Officer

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.120 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District in connection with the case in Crime No.10 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st Respondent Police and Quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Appaswamee

¶16

For Respondents: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. T. Harshana for R1 Mr. S.R. Gulshankumar for R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.120 of 2014 facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District, has filed this Criminal Original Petition.

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 8731 of 2026

¶22

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant / 2 nd

¶23

respondent lodged a complaint before the 1 st respondent police alleging that he had entered into a lease agreement with the 1 st petitioner for taking the lodge/hotel on lease and paid a lump sum amount as advance, based on the representation of the 1 st petitioner that the lodge possessed a bar licence. Subsequently, as the 1 st petitioner was unable to obtain a bar licence for the demised lodge, both parties agreed to cancel the lease agreement. It is further alleged that towards refund of the advance amount, the 1 st petitioner issued cheques, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. On the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.10 of 2014 for offence under Sections 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC. On completion of the investigation, the 1 st respondent Police filed a charge sheet before the trial Court, listing 9 witnesses and the relevant documents.

¶24

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1 st respondent.

¶25

The case is at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have

¶26

decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶27

Today the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent appeared before this Court

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP No. 8731 of 2026

¶31

and their identities were confirmed by the 1 st respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioners and the 2 nd respondent

¶32

have filed separate affidavits before this Court and have also filed a Joint Compromise Memo.

¶33

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not 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), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme 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., is inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.120 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District.

¶34

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.120 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District is quashed against the petitioners.

¶35

Neutral Citation: Yes/No AT

¶36

10-04-2026

¶37

__________ Page3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP No. 8731 of 2026

¶40

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.