I.Jayalani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Madurai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10829 of 2025 I.Jayalani ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, CCD III District Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.34 of 2025) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. S.Ukkirapandi ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.34 of 2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same as against the Petitioner / Accused No.2.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunnithy For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Prasanna 1/9
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.34 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of IT Act, 2008, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The allegation in the FIR is that the defacto complainant was lured by the first accused to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that on 22.01.2025, the first accused had transferred Rs.46,999/- to the petitioner/second accused and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not involved in the alleged offence; that the petitioner's account was used by other accused; and that the parties have now entered into a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 1st July 2025 and the scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows:
2/9
3/9
4/9
4. The petitioner, namely, I.Jeyalani (Aadhaar No.6490 2364 1505) and the second respondent, Ukkirapandi (Aadhaar No.4224 1039 2180) were present before this Court in person on 11.09.2025. They were identified by Mr.B.Balamurugan, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them. On that day, this Court had adjourned the matter seeking a report from the first respondent as to whether the dispute between the parties is private in nature. Today, the first respondent has filed the report, which reads as follows: "2. During the investigation, it was revealed that out of the above amount, on 22.01.2025, a sum of Rs. 46,999/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No. 22495009835 belonging to Accused No.1, Sagar Dubey, was transferred to Indian Overseas Bank A/c No. 159402000000573 belonging to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 - Jayalani.
3. It is humbly submitted that in view of the above findings, a special team was formed and the Petitioner/A2 was arrested on 03.06.2025. During enquiry, he confessed that he had handed over his bank account (Indian Overseas Bank A/c No. 159402000000573) to his friend Mehaboob Basha for trading purposes, for which he had received a commission of Rs.6,000/-. There are no other previous cases against A2 Jeyalani. 5/9
4. It is humbly submitted that upon being summoned, Mehaboob Basha appeared before the investigating team on 12.07.2025 and produced documents to show that he held accounts in various crypto currency exchanges and was actively engaged in cryptocurrency trading, particularly in the conversion of the stablecoin Tether (USDT) into Indian Rupees. During the course of enquiry, it was further revealed that one Sagar Dubey, holder of Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No.22495009835, had placed an order for the purchase of 470.46046 USDT on 22.01.2025 through the KuCoin exchange. For this P2P (peer-to-peer) transaction, he had paid an amount of Rs. 46,999/-, which was credited to the Indian Overseas Bank account of the Petitioner. an order
5. It is humbly submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that Accused No.1, Mehaboob Basha, came to know the details behind the complaint, understood the risks involved and subsequently settled the entire amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- the defacto complainant, Ukkirapandi, 12.07.2025. The defacto complainant has acknowledged receipt of the said amount and has expressed his willingness to withdraw the complaint.
6. It is submitted that from the above investigation, the role of the Petitioner/A2 is confined to the receipt of Rs.46,999/-from 6/9
Accused No.1 as part of a crypto currency transaction, and there are no further NCRP complaints tagged against his account apart from the present case. These facts are respectfully placed before this Hon'ble Court for consideration."
5. In view of the above report that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and the dispute has now been settled and considering the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation. Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.34 of 2025, dated 02.06.2025 is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
24.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu 7/9
To 1.The Inspector of Police, CCD III District Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Indu Crl.O.P(MD).No.10829 of 2025 24.09.2025 9/9