R.Vijayakumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. R.Vijayakumar

2. R.Saravanakumar

3. R.Muniyasamy

4. Kathirvel

5. Ramu ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No. 5/2023

2. J.James Xavier Jaya Prakasi ... Respondent PRAYER :-This Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 5/2023 dated 10.03.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same as illegal so far as the petitioners is concern. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar for R2 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offences under Section 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC, against the petitioners.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners, who are the tenants under the defacto complainant, had prepared a forged documents making it appear that they had a valid lease, even after the expiry of the lease.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant / second respondent would submit that the parties have since arrived at a compromise and the petitioners have vacated from the premises and handed over vacant possession to the second respondent.

2/5

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the landlord and the tenants and the parties have now arrived at a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 03.06.2024.

5. The petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.M.Sethuramu, DCB-II, Ramanathapuram District. The defacto complainant would state that the petitioners had handed over the vacant possession to her. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

6. Considering the fact that the dispute is between landlord and tenants and the compromise arrived between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation. Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.5 of 2023 is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten 3/5

Thousand only) as costs to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry. The joint compromise memo dated 03.06.2024 shall form part and parcel of this order. 05.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No LS TO

1. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

Copy to The officer-in-charge, Mediation and Conciliation Centre Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN,J LS CRL OP(MD) No.16063 of 2024 05.11.2025 5/5