Eswara Rao Nandam v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.9284 of 2026

1. Eswara Rao Nandam

2. Uma Nandam

3. Vishaal Nandam .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram City Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

(Crime No.83 of 2026)

2. Sumit Gupta .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.83/2026, dated 24.03.2026, on the file of the 1st respondent herein, Chengalpattu district and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.83 of 2026 dated 24.03.2026 for offences under Sections 351(2), 316(2), 314, 61 and 318(4) of the B.N.S, 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police, have filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are respectively the Chief Executive Officer and family members associated with M/s.Polymatech Electronics Limited. The second respondent claimed to be engaged in the business of private equity and alleged that an agreement, dated 10.10.2022 was entered into with the Company, under which, the second respondent and one Manish Khurana were to render investment advisory related services and were to be paid commission, linked to investments, allegedly raised or introduced through them. Disputes arose between the parties primarily in relation to allege advisory fees, alleged entitlement thereto and alleged equity-related commitments claimed by the second respondent and the said Manish Khurana.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the second 2/6

respondent and the said Manish Khurana issued legal notices, dated 03.01.2025 and 25.11.2025, making escalating monetary demands, including a demand of about Rs.157 crore with interest, which was disputed and denied by the Company as being inflated, tenable and lacking contractual and factual basis.

4. Thereafter, the second respondent and the said Manish Khurana initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal raising a claim of Rs.157 crore. The second respondent and the said Manish Khurana had allegedly attempted to exert pressure on the Company and its management by making threats by using their man power. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.83 of 2026 for offences under Sections 351(2), 316(2), 314, 61 and 318(4) of the B.N.S, 2023 against the petitioners.

5. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for the first respondent submitted that the case has been closed as 'further action dropped'. The RCS was served on the petitioners on 23.05.2026.

3/6

6. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by the first respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. Now they are not willing to further proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect.

7. 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 Supreme 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 F.I.R.

8. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.83 of 2026 dated 24.03.2026 on the file of 4/6

the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioners. 12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram City Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 6/6