T.G.Gowthaman v. The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR T.G.Gowthaman ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

Crime No.11/2025

2. Vasanthi ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the 1st Respondent and Quash the same.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.S.Natraj for R2

ORDER

The petitioner/sole accused in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 316, 336, 340 and

318 IPC, has filed the present quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, her mother Devaki and others executed a registered General Power of Attorney vide Doc.No.1106 of 1982, dated 25.09.1982, in favour of the petitioner to sell their land in Old S.No.477/4, Patta No.43, New S.No.477/4A1A1A, admeasuring 85 Cents, situated at Valarpuram Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Subsequently, the de facto complainant's mother Devaki died on 13.04.2004. However, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner has sold the subject land to one Vasuki vide registered sale deed in Doc.No.7260 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025.

During registration of the same, the petitioner has projected as if the de facto complainant's mother Devaki was alive and has affixed the photo of some other person in the place of Devaki and has managed to enclose a Life Certificate. He has also forged the Life Certificates of other Principals and has executed a registered sale deed without the knowledge of the Principals. On the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the case in Crime No.11 of 2025 came to be registered by the 1st respondent Police as against the petitioner. 3.Now, the petitioner/accused has filed the present quash petition on the basis of the settlement reached between the parties.

4.Learned counsel on either side submitted that the petitioner has sufficiently compensated the 2nd respondent and other legal heirs of Devaki and a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- has been paid to all the legal heirs. The legal heirs of Devaki had executed a sale deed in favour of the said Vasuki for the second time. Since the property was re-conveyed after receiving the sale consideration, the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant, who had set the criminal law in motion, does not want to prosecute the petitioner. 5.

Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that the investigation in this case has been completed and since the entire consideration has been paid to the de facto complainant and settlement has been arrived, further action has been dropped and the same has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram, vide FRC No.4/2025 dated 20.11.2025. 6.Today, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. In support of the joint memo of compromise, the parties reiterated that they have settled the matter and the entire consideration has been paid to the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant. Hence, they are willing to compound the offences.

They have filed individual affidavits to that effect.

7.One important issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the accused. 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 noncompoundable 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 interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

8.However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual in nature and the parties themselves have now come forward to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. 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./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the accused. 9.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioner in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties shall form part of the records.

18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

MKN 18-06-2026