Madras High Court
C.Baburaj vs The State on 7 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 27593 of 2015
And
M.P.No. 1 of 2015
1. C.Baburaj
2. B.Rajeshwaran ... Petitioners 1 & 2 / Accused
1&3
Vs.
1. The State
Rep. by its Inspector of Police
G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station
Cheyyur Taluk
Kancheepuram District -603 319.
Subramani (Deceased)
2. S.Sukumar
3. S.Sanjeevi
4. S.Sriram ... Respondents 2 to 4/Proposed
respondents vide order dated
07.09.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.
8949 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the record of the FIR in Crime No. 321 of 2015 on the file of the first
respondent and to quash the same.
***
For Petitioners : Mr. M.Sivavarthanan
For 1st Respondent : Mr. E.Raj Thilak
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.T.Sreenivasan
ORDER
The father of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Subramani, son of
Nagaswami, had occasion to give a complaint to the first
respondent/Inspector of Police, G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station, Cheyyur
Taluk, Kancheepuram District, leading to registration of First Information
Report in Cr.No. 321 of 2015 for offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC against the petitioners herein.
2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash
the First Information Report in the said crime number.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. There has been an earlier round of litigation between the parties
in the civil courts, finally culminating in S.A.No. 685 of 2015. A
memorandum of compromise had been entered into on 01.08.2017. A learned
Single Judge had recorded the compromise and disposed of the said Second
Appeal by Judgment dated 06.03.2020. One of the terms of the said decree
was to co-operate for quashing of the complaint in FIR No. 321 of 2015.
Unfortunately, Mr. Subramani, son of Nagaswami, the father of the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein, the complainant had subsequently expired
and this made it necessary for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to honor his
commitment and they have come forward to do so by entering into a
memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2021 with the petitioners herein.
4. A memorandum of compromise accordingly signed by the
petitioners and by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dated 23.08.2021 and also
incidentally signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also by the
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, has been presented before
this Court on 24.08.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. Heard the matter through video conferencing. The presence of
Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
T.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 through
video conferencing is acknowledged. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the first respondent is present in open
Court.
6. Through video conferencing, the petitioners, C.Baburaj and
B.Rajeshwaran also appeared and among the respondents, S.Sukumar and
S.Sriram appeared and they both affirmed that they had entered into a
compromise in terms of the comprise already entered into in S.A.No. 685 of
2015. The third respondent S.Sanjeevi is not present and I am informed that
he had gone to Switcherland for business purposes, but at any rate, he had
also signed the compromise memo.
7. Being satisfied that the compromise memo had been signed with
full knowledge as to its contents and that there has been no coercion
regarding the same and more particularly with respect to the identities of the
parties, I hold that the same may be recorded. I further hold that in view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the said compromise entered into among the parties, continuation of First
Information Report in crime No. 231 of 2015 on the file of the first
respondent would be of no avail and the investigation into the allegations
thereunder would only be a futile exercise.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 9 SCC 641 [ Parbatbhai
Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of
Gujarat and another], had given various guidelines and principles which
should be examined in a criminal case where the parties had entered into a
compromise and where it is opined that continuation of either First
Information Report or calendar case would be of no avail.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that there may be
criminal case which has an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
dispute and which stands on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of
inherent power to quash is concerned.
10. It had also been stated that a criminal case involving offences
which arise from financial transactions with a civil flavour may in appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
situations be questioned where parties have settled the dispute. It had also
been stated that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in view of
the compromise between the disputants where the possibility of conviction is
remote and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would only cause
oppression and prejudice.
11. Mr. E.Raj Thilak, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
pointed out that the identity of the parties to the compromise should be
examined on the basis of Adhar cards and other documents relating to their
identity.
12. Mr. M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioner stated
forwarded the Aadharcards and I am confident that the parties present
through video conference are the parties who had actually signed the
compromise and that the absentee / S.Sanjeevi would not raise any objection
for the present order to be passed.
13. In view of these circumstances, I hold that the First Information
Report in Crime No. 321 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent need not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
be put up for further investigation by the Investigating Officer and may be
curtailed and the same is quashed.
14. The compromise shall form part of this order. The copies of the
Aadhar cards shall also form part of this order.
15. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.
07.09.2021
(1/2)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsg
To
The Inspector of Police
G-3, Melmaruvathur Police Station
Cheyyur Taluk
Kancheepuram District -603 319.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,
J
vsg
Crl.O.P.No. 27593 of 2015
And
M.P.No. 1 of 2015
07.09.2021
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
