Sheik Dawood v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9998 & 9999 of 2024 1.Sheik Dawood 2.Abuthahir 3.Abubakar ... Petitioners Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.
(Crime No.17 of 2023) 2.Inba Kubendran ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971/Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No. 303 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.
Page No. 1 of 10
For Petitioners : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar *****
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.303 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The allegation in the final report is that the first petitioner is a land broker and the second petitioner is his son-in-law; that the second respondent/defacto complainant approached the first petitioner for purchase of a land; that there was an unregistered agreement between them for the sale of the property belonging to one Thiruganavalli; that the second respondent/defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as Page No. 2 of 10
advance on the date of the agreement, and further sums of Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.08.2018 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.08.2018 to the first petitioner; that thereafter, the first petitioner handed over possession of the property to the second respondent/defacto complainant, who put up a shed thereon for business purposes; that the said Thiruganavalli executed a power of attorney in favour of the second petitioner, at the instance of the first petitioner; that thereafter, the first and second petitioners further received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the second respondent/defacto complainant for execution of the sale deed; and that, however, without the knowledge of the second respondent/defacto complainant, they sold the property to the third petitioner, thereby committing the aforesaid offences.
3. Admittedly, there were certain transactions relating to the purchase of land. 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 07.07.2025. The scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows:
Page No. 3 of 10
Page No. 4 of 10
Page No. 5 of 10
Page No. 6 of 10
Page No. 7 of 10
4. The petitioners, namely, (1) Sheik Dawood, (2) Abuthahir, and
(3) Abubakar and the second respondent/defacto complainant, namely, Inba Kubendran are present before this Court in person. The parties are identified by Mr.S.Selvaraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-I, Madurai. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.
5. In view of the same, considering the nature of the offences and the relationship between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned final report pending trial. Accordingly, the impugned final report in C.C.No.303 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, is quashed.
6. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.09.2025 JEN Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Page No. 8 of 10
Copy To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 9 of 10
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
JEN 23.09.2025 Page No. 10 of 10