← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10049/2025disposed of

Raju v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-07-24Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.OP(MD)No.10049 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7439 and 7440 of 2025

1. Raju

2. Sriram

3. Mahalakshmi

4. Ananthakrishnan

5. Bharati

6. Mala ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, Dindigul.

2. K.Arumugam

3. Jakir Hussain

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.92 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Ilango, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.T.Nishanth For R1 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 and R3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. They are facing the charges for the offence under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 448, 294B and 506(i) IPC. They moved this petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2025 pending against them, on the ground of compromise.

2. This Court, by its earlier order dated 17.06.2025, directed the respondent Police to ascertain as to whether the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one and without any threat or coercive and adjourned the matter for appearance of parties.

3. When this petition was taken up for hearing on 30.06.2025, the 2/6

defacto complainants have expressed their concern that they have not agreed for the terms of compromise. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainants, in fact, agreed for the compromise and also received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of a Demand Draft. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel requested to adjourn this matter to some other day to persuade the defacto complainant to solve the issue amicably. Considering the request made by the learned Senior Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2025.

4. When this petition was taken up for hearing on 02.07.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to adjourn the matter for appearance of the learned Senior Counsel. Therefore, the matter was adjourned today.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they would argue the case on merits.

6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainants submits that the petitioners have already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the 3/6

Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and also canvassed their grounds in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 and this Court, by order dated 10.11.2023, dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, this petition is filed on the ground of compromise.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

8. This petition is filed on the ground of compromise. The defacto complainants have made it clear that they are not inclined for compromise. The learned counsel for the defacto complainants also submits that the defacto complainants are inclined to return the amount, which they have received from the petitioners.

10. It is also reported before this Court that the petitioners have already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on merits, by order dated 10.11.2023.

11. Considering the fact that the earlier petition by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court on merits and 4/6

this petition has been filed on the ground of compromise, which is also not agreeable for the defacto complainants, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application after a compromise arrived at between the parties or on new grounds. The defacto complainants shall return the amount within a period of two weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes ogy To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, Dindigul.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy Crl.OP(MD)No.10049 of 2025 24.07.2025 6/6