C.Baburaj v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.09.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.O.P.No. 27593 of 2015 And M.P.No. 1 of 2015 1.

C.Baburaj 2.

B.Rajeshwaran ... Petitioners 1 & 2 / Accused 1 & 3 Vs.

1.

The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station Cheyyur Taluk Kancheepuram District -603 319.

Subramani (Deceased) 2.

S.Sukumar 3.

S.Sanjeevi 4.

S.Sriram ... Respondents 2 to 4/Proposed respondents vide order dated 07.09.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.

8949 of 2021 in Crl.OP.No.27593/15 Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the record of the FIR in Crime No. 321 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioners :

Mr. M.Sivavarthanan For 1st Respondent :

Mr. E.Raj Thilak Government Advocate(Crl. Side) For RR 2 to 4 :

Mr.T.Sreenivasan

ORDER

The father of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Subramani, son of Nagaswami, had occasion to give a complaint to the first respondent/Inspector of Police, G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, leading to registration of First Information Report in Cr.No. 321 of 2015 for offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners herein.

2.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in the said crime number. 3.

There has been an earlier round of litigation between the parties in the civil courts, finally culminating in S.A.No. 685 of 2015. A memorandum of compromise had been entered into on 01.08.2017. A learned Single Judge had recorded the compromise and disposed of the said Second Appeal by Judgment dated 06.03.2020. One of the terms of the said decree was to co-operate for quashing of the complaint in FIR No. 321 of 2015. Unfortunately, Mr. Subramani, son of Nagaswami, the father of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein, the complainant had subsequently expired and this made it necessary for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to honor his commitment and they have come forward to do so by entering into a memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2021 with the petitioners herein. 4.

A memorandum of compromise accordingly signed by the petitioners and by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dated 23.08.2021 and also incidentally signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, has been presented before this Court on 24.08.2021.

5.

Heard the matter through video conferencing. The presence of Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 through video conferencing is acknowledged. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the first respondent is present in open Court.

6.

Through video conferencing, the petitioners, C.Baburaj and B.Rajeshwaran also appeared and among the respondents, S.Sukumar and S.Sriram appeared and they both affirmed that they had entered into a compromise in terms of the comprise already entered into in S.A.No. 685 of 2015. The third respondent S.Sanjeevi is not present and I am informed that he had gone to Switcherland for business purposes, but at any rate, he had also

signed the compromise memo.

7.

Being satisfied that the compromise memo had been signed with full knowledge as to its contents and that there has been no coercion regarding the same and more particularly with respect to the identities of the parties, I hold that the same may be recorded. I further hold that in view of the said compromise entered into among the parties, continuation of First Information Report in crime No. 231 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent would be of no avail and the investigation into the allegations thereunder would only be a futile exercise. 8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 9 SCC 641 [ Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another], had given various guidelines and principles which should be examined in a criminal case where the parties had entered into a compromise and where it is opined that continuation of either First Information Report or calendar case would be of no avail. 9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that there may be criminal case which has an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute and which stands on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of inherent power to quash is concerned. 10.

It had also been stated that a criminal case involving offences which arise from financial transactions with a civil flavour may in appropriate situations be questioned where parties have settled the dispute. It had also been stated that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in view of the compromise between the disputants where the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice. 11.

Mr. E.Raj Thilak, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) pointed out that the identity of the parties to the compromise should be examined on the basis of Adhar cards and other documents relating to their identity.

12.

Mr. M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioner stated forwarded the Aadharcards and I am confident that the parties present through video conference are the parties who had actually signed the compromise and that the absentee / S.Sanjeevi would not raise any objection for the present order to be passed.

13.

In view of these circumstances, I hold that the First Information Report in Crime No. 321 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent need not be put up for further investigation by the Investigating Officer and may be curtailed and the same is

quashed.

14.

The compromise shall form part of this order. The copies of the Aadhar cards shall also form part of this order. 15.

This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

* Xerox copy of the Memorandum of Compromise is enclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsg To

1. The Inspector of Police G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station Cheyyur Taluk Kancheepuram District -603 319.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, Advocate, S.R.No.45172 Crl.O.P.No. 27593 of 2015 And M.P.No. 1 of 2015 SSI(CO) SU(27/09/2021)