Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21589 of 2025 Suresh ... Petitioner/Accused 1 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.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same against the petitioner/accused No.1 For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Athiveerapandiyan For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.R.Venkateswaran 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner seeks to quash the final report in impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, which was filed for the offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 read with 120 (B) of the 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/petitioner 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 petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act; that in order to help the petitioner, other accused persons had forged the documents making it appear that the defacto complainant had received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

2/6

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute is a monetary dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has since been settled; that though the petitioner was convicted for the offence of the Section 138 NI Act, this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21909 of 2025, had set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the compromise.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner 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.

6. The petitioner 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.

7. 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. 3/6

Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 2011 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 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, 4/6

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Indu Crl.O.P(MD).No.21589 of 2025 28.11.2025 6/6