Madras High Court
Jayachandran vs State on 27 January, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
1.Jayachandran
2.R.C.Mariadoss
3.B.Krishnan
4.Gopu
5.Dhamu
6.Adaikan ... Petitioners
Versus
1.State, represented by the
Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.P.James ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.103 of
2007, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate ccb & cbcid, egmore-
chennai in Crime No.791 of 2002 and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Pugaleanthi
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.J.Srinivasan
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the 2nd respondent
is having property in survey No.24/1 to the extent of 0.22 cent at
Kolathur Village. On eastern side, A3 to A5 are having property to the
extent of 28 ½ cents. To maintain the property, in the year 1996, A1 was
given power of attorney by A3 to A5 vide D.Nos.2067, 2068 & 2148 of
1996. There was no pathway to the property given to A1 as power of
attorney. Hence, A1 in collusion with the other accused conspired and
corrected the original power of attorney documents by adding road in the
boundary of their property. On receipt of the complaint, the 1 st
respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.791 of 2002 on
22.10.2002 and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet came to be
filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, listing 38 witnesses as LW1 to LW38 and other documents and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
the same was taken on file as C.C.No.103 of 2007.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the
stage of FIR, the wife of the 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.4623 of
2001 before the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
against the accused and others, which was decreed in her favour, as
against which First Appeals were filed against the wife of the 2nd
respondent which was allowed setting aside the decree in the suit in
O.S.No.4623 of 2001. Thereafter, the wife of the 2nd respondent filed
Second Appeals before this Court in S.A.Nos.1245 to 1248 of 2010.
During the pendency of the Second Appeals, the parties have resolved
their disputes and arrived at compromise. This Court, recording the
same, disposed the Second Appeals in terms of Joint Memorandum of
Compromise on 28.07.2021.
4.In order to substantiate the above submissions, the learned
counsel for the petitioners produced the Joint Compromise Memo filed in
S.A.No.1245 to 1248 of 2010 and the common Judgment passed in it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
5.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time,
the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
6.The 2nd respondent has filed a memo before this Court reiterating
the compromise arrived with the petitioners and others in Second
Appeals in S.A.No.1245 to 1248 of 2010. The petitioners and the 2nd
respondent are present through Video conferencing today and this Court
also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have
come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
7.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in
keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are
not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai
Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due
caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
MLJ Crl 10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2007, on the file of
the Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
8.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel,
the proceedings in C.C. No.103 of 2007, on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate CCB & CBCID, Egmore, Chennai is quashed against all the
accused.
27.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sli
To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate CCB & CBCID,
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
sli
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2022
27.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
