Sadasivam v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).21746 of 2025 1.Sadasivam 2.Karuppasamy 3.Subramanian ... Petitioners/Accused 2 to 4 Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.457/2007 ... Respondent/Complainant 2.M.C.Subramaniam ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code/Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same against the petitioners/accused 2 to 4.

For Petitioners : Mr.Y.Athiveerapandiyan For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

For R-2 : Mr.R.Venkateswaran

ORDER

The petitioners seek to quash the final report in impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, and quash the same against the petitioners/accused 2 to 4. which was filed for the offences under Section 192, 193, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 of IPC.

2. Initially the case was registered against four persons in C.C.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. Thereafter, the case has been split up against the first accused and the new case number has been assigned as C.C.No.24 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.

3. The gist of the allegation in the impugned final report is that the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint as against the first accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act; that in order to help the first accused, the petitioners had forged the documents making it appear that the 2/5

defacto complainant had received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent 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 27.11.2025.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent, namely, M.C.Subramaniam (Aadhaar No.7249 3791 0956) are present before this Court in person. They are identified by M/s.M.Maharani, Women Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

5. In view of the same and 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 in keeping the impugned final report pending trial. Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 27.11.2025 shall form part of this order. The petitioners shall pay a sum of 3/5

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry. 28.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram 2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Indu Crl.O.P(MD).21746 of 2025 28.11.2025 5/5