S.Muthukumaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR S.Muthukumaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore District.

Cr.No.139 of 2024

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Vellore.

3. Geetha @ Yogalakshmi ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.139 of 2024 on the file of Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore District and quash the same based on the Joint Compromise Affidavit Dated 21.01.2026. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Saravanan For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1 Mr.A.Akash for R2

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.139 of 2024 registered for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto-complainant. The defacto-complainant's husband, Mr.Kannadasan owned a car Tata Harrier bearing Registration No.TN23DB4968. Mr.Kannadasan passed away on 04.08.2023. Prior to his death, he had signed the transfer application (Form 29) of the car which remained in the petitioner's possession. The petitioner submitted this application to the RTO on 17.08.2023 and the RTO transferred the vehicle's ownership to the petitioner on 18.08.2023. Upon finding that the petitioner had used her deceased husband's signature, to transfer the car, the defacto-complainant lodged a complaint with the RTO, Vellore. The RTO, Vellore, on enquiry found that the transfer of the vehicle made after the owner's death.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner it was a mistake and not a deliberate act and further car has been now handed over to the RTO, who in turn handed over to the second respondent / defacto-complainant. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, he prays for quashing.

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that the second respondent's husband passed away on 04.08.2023. The petitioner submitted the application for change of ownership on 17.08.2023 and thereafter, the ownership of the vehicle was changed on 18.08.2023. The deceased Kannadasan had left his wife / defacto-complainant, Divya and Sindhushree as his legalheirs and not the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner transferred the vehicle's name using a forged document. Based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant a case registered in Cr.No.139 of 2024 for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. Furthermore, W.P.No.5030 of 2024, this Court directed to surrender both the Registration Certificate and the vehicle to the RTO, Vellore. 5.

In the meantime, both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues. The defacto-complainant now understands that the incident was a mistake and not a deliberate act. Furthermore, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN23DB4968 has been now surrendered to the RTO, which has in turn handed it over to the second respondent / defactocomplainant. 6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the case is still at the stage of investigation.

themselves. The petitioner brother of late Mr.Kannadasan, is said to have used a Transfer application, with form 29 and 30 for transfer of ownership name for the Car No. TN23DB4968, by mistake after the death of his brother, now the mistake rectified further the submission of documents are private documents, the petitioner and defacto-complainant, closely related. It is a rival claim over the car, issues resolved, the car registration mistakenly done, stands rectified. The car is now handed over to the defacto-complainant with rectified registration certificate.

7.Today the petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by M/s.Suresh, Head Constable, attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed Joint Compromise Memo before this Court.

8.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., quashes the First Information Report on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

9.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.139 of 2024, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioner.

27-03-2026 ep To

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vellore District.

Cr.No.139 of 2024

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Vellore.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ep 27-03-2026