A.Raja v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P. No. 9883 of 2026 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 7071 & 7072 of 2026
1. A. Raja
2. A. Radhakrishnan
3. S. Anand Babu
4. D. Rajesh ..Petitioners Vs.
1.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, City Central Crime Branch, Tambaram CCB, Chennai - 119.
Crime No. 24/2023.
2.
J. Jayakrishnan ..Respondents Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records comprised in C.C. No. 508 of 2026 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, at Chengalpet and quash the same as against the petitioners/accused 1 to 4. 1\14
For Petitioners ::
Mr.M. Vimal Bobby Crimson For Respondents ::
Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed to call for the entire records comprised in C.C. No. 508 of 2026 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, at Chengalpet and quash the same as against the petitioners/accused 1 to 4.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the petitioners are involved in real estate business. The 2nd respondent, with a view to expand his business, approached the petitioners, who were promoting lands for construction and development activities, to procure vacant lands and based on his requirement, the 2nd respondent decided to purchase 20 acres of land in Thaiyur Village. Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpet District, said to be belonging to petitioners 1 to 3. Pursuant to the same, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 11.02.2013 and the 2nd respondent paid an advance of Rs.85,00,000/- to the petitioners. However, the petitioners were delaying the 2\14
execution of sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, when the 2nd respondent came to know that he has been cheated, he demanded repayment of the advance amount. However, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences, which led to the filing of the complaint. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 24 of 2023 was registered by the 1st respondent Police for offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and on completion of investigation, final report was filed listing 11 witnesses and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 508 of 2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were certain real estate transactions between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. According to the learned counsel, it was the complainant, who was unable to mobilise the funds to pay the sale consideration and that was the reason for the delay in execution of the sale deed in his favour. When the petitioners insisted for return of the original title deeds, which had been handed over to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, he threatened the petitioners through rowdy elements, which necessitated the petitioners to 3\14
approach the Police. However, during enquiry, the Police Authorities found that the issue involved was civil in nature and hence, the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 127 of 2020 before the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, seeking return of original title deeds. The said suit was later withdrawn upon return of title deeds. The 2nd respondent, in order to give criminal colour to a civil transaction, filed the present complaint on 25.09.2023 based on which the FIR in Crime No. 24 of 2023 came to be registered. The learned counsel would further submit that petitioners 1 to 3, at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, had deposited Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet, as per the order of this Court dated 19.06.2024 in Crl.O.P. NO.
8698 of 2024 and the 2nd respondent has received the said amount through the Trial Court. Subsequently, the parties have resolved the dispute between them and entered into an amicable settlement. Consequent thereupon, the remaining sum of Rs.65,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent on 09.11.2024 and the 2nd respondent has also issued a receipt evidencing the same, which finds place at Page No.96 of the typed set of papers.
petition by quashing the proceedings as against the petitioners based on the settlement entered into between the parties.
4.
Learned Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioners are said to have defrauded the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant of a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- towards purchase of vacant lands and on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, case was registered and after completion of investigation, final report was laid listing 11 witnesses. He would submit that in the additional/further statement given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., he has stated that petitioners 1 and 3 had come to his office on 09.11.2024, paid Rs.65,00,000/- and obtained a receipt regarding the said payment as well as the original title deeds and that he was also in receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by petitioners 1 to 3 before the Trial Court, as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court. 5.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on records.
6.
The case is at the stage of trial. Since the entire advance amount paid by the de facto complainant has been settled and the parties 5\14
have now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed to that effect.
7.
The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by Ms.K. Sarasu, Inspector of Police, CCB, Tambaram.
8.
On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.
9.
The Joint Memo of compromise dated 05.04.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below: 6\14
7\14
8\14
9\14
10\14
10.
Learned Government Counsel 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 offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 11.
The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable 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 11\14
interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
12.
In the present case, the offences in question is purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings 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 Gujarat), this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.508 of 2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpat, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. 13.
This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 508 of 2026 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpat, is quashed as against the petitioners. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12\14
14. The Joint Memo of Compromise dated 05.04.2026 filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
05.06.2026 nv To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpat.
2. The Inspector of Police, City Central Crime Branch, Tambaram CCB, Chennai - 119.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
13\14
M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
nv Crl.O.P. No. 9883 of 2026 05.06.2026 14\14