Sudarmani v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23/09/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Sudarmani,

2. Selvaraj,

3. Purusothaman, ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District (Crime No.59 of 2024).

2. Dennison ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records to the FIR in Crime No. 59 of 2024 dated 07.02.2024 on the file of the first respondent and Quash the same against the petitioners concern.

1/8

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Susi Kumar For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Henri Tiphagne

ORDER

The petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No. 59 of 2024, dated 07.02.2024, on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC.

2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complaint's brother, his wife and their son were the owners of properties comprised in several survey numbers at Rajakkalmangalam, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District and that the accused had created forged documents and impersonate the deceased one Sailus and transferred the said properties to various persons and hence, they are liable for the aforesaid offences.

2/8

3.The petitioners are arrayed as A8, A10 and A17 respectively. The allegation against them is that the first petitioner had purchased an extent of five acres and one cent by a document bearing Registration No. 205/2001 dated 01.02.2001 from the other accused and he, in turn, sold the property in favor of the second petitioner and subsequently, the second petitioner had executed a sale deed in favor of the third petitioner on 21.03.2005.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in respect of the extent of five acres and one cent, the parties, namely, the petitioners and the defacto complaint have entered into a compromise on the advise of the elders and well-wishers and the parties have agreed that the impugned F.I.R may be quashed.

5.The parties have also filed a joint compromise memo. The scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows: 3/8

4/8

5/8

6.The petitioners, namely, Sudarmani, (Aadhaar No.9341 3768 3990), Selvaraj, (Aadhaar No.4479 5420 2491), Purusothaman, (Aadhaar No.6493 2262 6139) and the second respondent, namely, Dennison (Aadhaar No.2309 6120 8792) are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.Prabu, Head Constable, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

7.The allegations against the petitioners are separable, as they relate only to an extent of five acres and one cent. Hence, considering the nature of the offences and also considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation as against the petitioners. It is also reported that pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, mediation is pending between the defacto complainant and other accused. This Court expresses no opinion on the said dispute. It is needless to say that if there is no compromise arrived at between the defacto complainant and the other accused, the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law as against the other 6/8

accused.

8.With the above observations, the impugned FIR in Crime No.59 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 23.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

SUNDER MOHAN,J CP

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16084 of 2025 Date : 23/09/2025 8/8