George Alexander v. The State Of Tamil Nadu 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

1. George Alexander

2. K.Manikandan

3. Arul Jothi

4. L.Linesh Kumar

5. M.K.Roopesh

6. Praveen @ Pravin Kumar B

7. Krishnan .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, CCB Tambaram, Tambaram, Chennai.

(Crime No.38/2026)

2. C.Anand .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R in Crime No.38 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.C.K.M.Appaji 1/6

For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1

ORDER

The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.38 of 2026 dated 12.02.2026 for offences under Sections 409, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code 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 the staff members and the second respondent is the customer of M/s.Muthoot Finance Limited, Pallikaranai Branch, Chennai. A case in Crime No.569 of 2022 was registered by the first respondent Police against the second respondent along with staff members and two other customers of M/s.Muthoot Finance Limited in connection with the disappearance of jewels weighing 8069.9 gms from the locker of Pallikaranai Branch. Though the second respondent had availed jewel loan from the Pallikaranai branch in 12 separate loan accounts, one loan account still remained unaccounted. Out of 11 remaining accounts, 6 accounts were unrelated to the criminal case in Crime No.569 of 2022 and he had redeemed the jewels 2/6

of the said accounts by paying exorbitant interest. The remaining five loan accounts, in connection with the gold ornaments weighing 1010 gms were not returned to him and they were not seized by the first respondent Police. The police investigation further reveals that the accused employees of M/s.Muthoot Finance Limited intentionally misappropriated the jewels through 125 bogus accounts and certain officials discouraged him from pursuing the insurance fraud. Already, four police officials have investigated the case and one of the police officers had deleted the name of the second respondent from the case. Surprisingly, the second respondent came to know the branch of M/s.Muthoot Finance Limited, Pallikaranai branch was temporarily/permanently closed and vacated even without informing the customers. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.38 of 2026 for offences under Sections 409, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. The case is at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

3/6

4. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Ms.S.Saalini, Inspector attached to the first respondent Police Station. 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. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed separate affidavit before this Court.

5. 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.

6. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.38 of 2026 dated 12.02.2026 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, Tambaram, Chennai..

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 6/6