Narayanan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Narayanan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, South Gate, Madurai City, Madurai.
(In Crime No.132 of 2025) 2.T.Saratha ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned FIR in Crime No.132 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabhaharan For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 : Mrs.T.Saratha, Party-in-person.
1/7
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.132 of 2025, for the offence under Section 420 IPC on the file of the first respondent Police. He has filed this application to quash the proceedings pending against him, on the ground that the issue has been amicably settled among themselves.
2.The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant has pledged her jewels in the petitioner's finance company. When the defacto complainant asked to return the jewels, the petitioner refused to return the same and also cheated her.
3.Since it is reported that the issue has been compromised, this Court entertained this petition, ordered notice and also directed the investigation officer to ascertain as to whether the compromise arrived between the parties is a voluntary one, without any threat or coercion. 2/7
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submits that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.132 of 2025 has been registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC. According to the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), the investigation is in initial stage. 5.The defacto complainant, who is present before this Court, claims that she has pledged her 61 grams of jewels in the petitioner's finance company and the petitioner has also issued receipt. Three months prior to the date of the complaint, when the defacto complainant attempted to redeem the jewels, the petitioner refused to return the same and made allegations as against her that the jewels are spurious one. She also claims that the petitioner is a member of a political party, namely, Hindu Munnani and he is also intimidating her by showing his influence with the respondent Police and therefore, the respondent Police is also not taking appropriate action as against the petitioner.
6.The petitioner claims that the issue has been compromised, however, the defacto complainant denied the same and made 3/7
allegations as against the petitioner that he is politically influenced person. She also claims that the petitioner is preventing the respondent Police from conducting the investigation. Further, she claims that she is not aware of the compromise as projected by the petitioner and she has not arrived any compromise with him. She further submits that the petitioner cheated several other persons in the same manner. She claims that in the event, if any advertisement has been made as to the persons, who have been cheated by this petitioner, complaints would pour as against him.
7.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) also confirms the submission of the defacto complainant and submits that the petitioner involved in the following cases:- 1.Cr.No.6 of 2024 2.Cr.No.480 of 2022 3.Cr.No.719 of 2024 8.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.
4/7
9.The petitioner has filed this petition to quash FIR in Cr.No.132 of 2025 on the ground of compromise. However, the defacto complainant claims that there is no compromise and she has also made serious allegations as against the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is also a member of the political party and therefore, the defacto complainant is having an apprehension that the investigation has not been conducted properly and her jewels have also not been recovered so far. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition on the ground of compromise.
10.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner returned a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defacto complainant and therefore, he insisted to return the said amount. This averment has to be taken into consideration only by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation. 11.In view of the above, this Court directs the respondent Police to conduct the investigation in Cr.No.132 of 2025 in a proper manner and find out as to whether any other persons have been cheated by the 5/7
petitioner. This Court also expects the Deputy Commissioner of Police(South), Madurai City to monitor the investigation in Cr.No.132 of 2025. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 11.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police(South), Madurai City.
2.The Inspector of Police, South Gate, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
B.PUGALENDHI,J gns 11.07.2025 7/7