Madras High Court
Nandagopal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
and Crl.MP.Nos.3869 & 3871 of 2021
Nandagopal ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch – I,
Team-XVII,
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2.Bhuvaneswari ..Respondents
(R2 is suo moto impleaded as per order
in Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3869 to 3871 of 2021
dated 29.03.2021)
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.5222 of
2020, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID,
Egmore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Pandian for A1.
Mr.A.Nagarajan for A3.
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.
Mr.P.Nagaraj for R2.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in
C.C.No.5222 of 2020, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for
CCB/CBCID, Egmore and quash the same.
2. The gist of the prosecution case as per the defacto complainant
(late Tr.L.Sugumar) is that he is the absolute owner of the properties
situated at S.No.91/1 (1acre and 2cents); S.No.94/2 (1acre and 7 cents); and
S.No.95/1B (58cents) totally measuring 2.67acres in Valasaravakkam
Village, Sri Devi Kuppam. Further allegation is that the petitioner and his
son/A2 had mortgaged his land in S.No.95/1B admeasuring 0.48cents in
favour of L&T Finance Ltd in document No.2891 of 2009 dated 21.07.2009
and as a partner for Mother real estates had mortgaged the lands in
S.No.91/1B measuring 0.41cents to IFCI Ltd represented by its Vice
President/Tmt.Usha in document No.4160 of 2011 thereby grabbed his
property. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the
respondent had registered a case in Cr.No.86/2014 for the offence under
Section 406 and 420 IPC and after completion of investigation in City
Central Crime Branch filed final report in CC.No.5222 of 2020 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Land Grabbing cases No.I, Periyamedu,
Chennai for the offence under Section 120(b), 420, 423, 465, 468, 471
r/w.34 IPC.
3. Mr.Manoj Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is the Partner of Mother Real Estates and
the Chairman & Managing Director of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries
Ltd and his son/A2/Aravind Nandgopal is a Partner and Director in the
aforementioned concerns. A3/Thillainayagam, A4/Ethirajan are also
Directors in the above mentioned concern and A5/Ganapathy Subramanian
is the Manager of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., and
A6/Krishnamoorthty is the Deputy Manager of above two concerns.
4. The learned counsel would further submit that in respect of the
above properties mentioned in the complaint there were civil litigation
pending between the petitioner's concerns and the defacto complainant.
Suit in OS.No.99 of 2003 was filed by the Company and the first petitioner
and suit in OS.No.549 of 2012 was filed by the defacto complainant in
respect of the properties. Both the suits were disposed of by an common
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
judgment dated 18.03.2014. During the pendency of the civil suits, the
defacto complainant had preferred a complaint to the respondent/police,
based on which a case in Cr.No.86 of 2014 was registered by the
respondent.
5. He would further submit that subsequent to the common judgment
dated 05.08.2016, both the parties preferred appeals before this Court in
AS.Nos.549 and 550 of 2016 and during the pendency of the civil
proceedings, the defacto complainant/L.Sukumar passed away on
09.08.2015 and thereafter, he was represented by his legal heirs both in the
civil and criminal proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal before
this Court, the parties have entered into a compromise and based on the
joint memo of compromise dated 22.04.2021, both the Appeal suits in
AS.Nos.549 and 550 of 2016 were decreed by an common judgment dated
26.04.2021. In the joint memo of compromise filed before the Court, the
legal heirs of the defacto complainant have also agreed to withdraw all the
criminal cases pending against the petitioner and his company and
partnership firm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
6. The learned counsel would submit that the dispute between the
parties is a private dispute and no public interest is involved and the matter
has also been compromised between the parties. He would further submit
that the legal heirs of the defacto complainant are present before this Court
and they have no objection in the proceedings in CC.No.5222 of 2022
being quashed, based on the memo or compromise dated 22.04.2021 entered
into between them.
7. The learned counsel would further submit that A1 being an
octogenarian appeared before this Court through video conference on
earlier occasion i.e, on 03.03.2022 and he is unable to appear in person
before this Court. A2 and A3 are present before this Court and the legal
heirs of the defacto complainant are also present in person.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based
on the complaint given by Late L.Sukumar the case in Cr.No.86 of 2014
was registered on 12.02.2014 for the offence under Section 406 and 420
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
IPC and after completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report
under Sections 120(b), 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 r/w.34 IPC. He would
submit that the respondent police had cited 13witnesses and he would
submit that the case is taken up in CC.No.5222 of 2020 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB/CBCID, Egmore and it is pending trial.
9. Mr.P.Nagaraj, appearing for the second respondent/wife and other
legal heirs of the defacto complainant would submit that the dispute
between the parties are personal in nature and the parties have settled the
dispute among themselves. Pursuant to which a joint memo of compromise
entered into between the parties on 22.04.2021. Based on which,
AS.Nos.549 and 550 of 2016 have been decreed by a Division Bench of this
Court on 26.04.2021. The petitioner/first accused is father, A2 is son of A1
and all the other accused are persons connected to the company and firms of
the accused. He would submit that the legal heirs of the defacto
complainant have no objection in the case in CC.No.5222 of 2020 being
quashed in entirety against all the accused.
10. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
Public Prosecutor for first respondent and the counsel for the second
respondent and perused the materials available on record including the Joint
memo of compromise entered into between the petitioner's company and the
legal heirs of the defacto complainant.
11. The case in Cr.No.86 of 2014 has been registered for offences
under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. After completion of investigation the first
respondent has filed the final report under Sections 120(b), 420, 423, 465,
468, 471 r/w.34 IPC and the case is taken up in CC.No.5222 of 2020 on the
file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB/CBCID, Egmore.
12. The parties have compromised the matter and a Joint Memo of
Compromise dated 22.04.2021 has been entered into between the parties.
The relevant paragraphs of the Joint Memo of Compromise is extracted
hereunder :-
"1. The PARTY OF FIRST PART is paving a sum of
Rs.11,75,00,000/- to PARTIES OF SECOND PART In the
following manner for giving up their claim In respect of the
schedule mentioned property by confirming title of PARTY
OF FIRST PART:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
a. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) by way of
RTGS on 5/3/2021 In favor of S.Bhuvaneswari from Axis
Bank, Chennai - 600 018.
b. Rs 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) by way
of Cheque NO 063877 drawn on State Bank of India,
N.S.C.Bose Road, in favor of S.Bhuvaneswari dated
10/3/2021
c. Cheque bearing No.104995 dated 22.04.2021 drawn
on Axis Bank, Chennai - 600 018 for a sum of Rs.
2,50,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) in the
name of S.Bhuvaneswari,
d. Cheque bearing No.104996 dated 22.04.2021 drawn
on Axis Bank, Chennai - 600 018, for a sum of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) in the
name of S.Indumathi,
e. Cheque bearing No.104997 dated 22.04.2021 drawn
on Axis Bank, Chennal - 600 018, for a sum of Rs.
2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) In the
name of S.Pravina,
f. Cheque bearing No.104998 dated 22.04.2021 drawn
on Axis Bank, Chennai - 600 018, for a sum of Rs.
2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) in the
name of S.Kalaivani,
g. Cheque bearing No.104999 dated 22.04.2021 drawn
on Axis Bank, Chennai - 600 018, for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
(Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) in favor of V.K.Gurusamy,
the nominee of parties of second part and on instructions of
parties of second part.
2.The PARTIES OF SECOND PART hereby confirm
receipt of said amount and agree for amicable settlement of all
disputes.
3. The PARTIES OF SECOND PART in lieu of receipt
of sums mentioned above concede right, title and possession
in respect of the schedule mentioned properties in favour of
PARTY OF FIRST PART. The PARTIES OF SECOND PART
hereby confirm that they do not have any right, title,
possession or ownership in respect of the schedule mentioned
properties.
4.The suit in O.S.No.99 of 2013 in so far it pertains to
declaration of title and consequential injunction relief in
Clause (a) and (b) of Plaint in O.S.No.99 of 2013 shall be
treated as decreed in favor of party of first part. Neither the
PARTIES OF SECOND PART or their legal heirs or any
person claiming through them shall have any claim, right, title
and possession in respect of the schedule mentioned property.
5.Additionally parties of second part are claiming title
for lands comprised in 94/2A Valasaravakkam Village,
Ambattur Taluk, presently Maduravoyal Taluk, Tiruvallur
District, presently Chennai District in the suit in O.S NO.549
of 2012. The same is not subject matter of suit in O.S.NO 99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
of 2013. The Parties of second part hereby admit title,
ownership and possession of the schedule mentioned in favor
of Party of First part. The Parties of Second part hereby agree
for party of first part to obtain No Objection Certificate from
TNHB or any statutory authorities in respect of the said
properties in their name and assure that they will not claim
any right, title or ownership upon issuance of NOC.
6.The PARTIES OF SECOND PART hereby agree that
the PARTY OF FIRST PART shall enjoy the schedule
mentioned properties as true and absolute owner in possession
of the same without any claim from any person whatsoever.
7.PARTY OF FIRST PART in the Joint memo in
A.S.No.549 of 2016 would be withdrawing relief in Clause 'C'
of the plaint namely mandatory injunction for cancellation of
patta as against the 2nd and 3rd defendants in O.S.No.99 of
2013 and the suit as against the 2nd and 3rd defendants shall
stand withdrawn in the light of this Memorandum of
Compromise and also on account of fact that parties who
contested title of the PARTY OF FIRST PART namely the
PARTIES OF SECOND PART are agreeing for transfer of
patta in respect of the schedule mentioned property in favour
of PARTY OF FIRST PART.
8.Parties of second part who are present pattadhars of
the said properties agree for transfer of patta and therefore the
relief in Clause C of plaint in O.S NO 99 of 2013 is deemed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
infructuous and unnecessary.
9. The PARTIES OF SECOND PART agree to file
necessary applications and seek for return of all original
documents filed by them in the suit and handover all such
original documents to PARTY OF FIRST PART.
10.The PARTIES OF SECOND PART hereby agree to
withdraw the suit in O.S.No.550 of 2016 as settled out of
Court in the light of this Memorandum of Compromise and
also sign necessary memo in A.S.No.550 of 2016 seeking for
withdrawal of suit by recording settlement arrived hereunder.
11.The PARTIES OF SECOND PART in light of
disputes being settled shall address necessary communications
to the revenue authorities for issuance of patta in respect of
the schedule mentioned property in favour of PARTY OF
FIRST PART.
12. Both parties hereby agree that they shall file a Joint
memo in A.S.No.549 of 2016 and seek for a compromise
decree in terms of this deed of Compromise and this deed of
compromise shall be form part of the decree.
13. The parties hereby agree that all disputes,
criminal complaints before any forum in relation to the
schedule mentioned property amongst the parties shall be
treated as 'settled' and shall not be proceeded with further.
The parties hereby agree for closure/quashing of criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
cases.
14. The PARTIES OF SECOND PART agree to -sign
necessary documents, letters as and when required by the
PARTY OF FIRST PART for confirming the title of the
PARTY OF FIRST PART in respect of the schedule mentioned
property.
15. In case of adverse claim by any third party in
relation to schedule mentioned properties, the PARTIES OF
SECOND PART agree to resolve the same at their cost and
confirm title and possession in favour of PARTY OF FIRST
PART.
16.Both parties agree for cooperating with registration
of the compromise decree along with this memo of
compromise before the Jurisdictional Sub Registrar and shall
seek a direction in this regard in memo file before Hon'ble
High Court.
17.This agreement is made in triplicate with one
original to PARTY OF FIRST PART, one original to PARTIES
of second part and one original to be submitted before Hon'ble
High Court to be recorded in appeal and made as part of
decree.
13. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have
settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the
criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the parties,
the High Court should act with caution and the power should be exercised
sparingly only in order to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent
abuse of process of any Court.
14. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303], the
Supreme Court has held as follows:
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised
where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."
15. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466], after
considering the Gian Singh's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is
to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
16. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843],
the Supreme Court held thus"
"(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent
in the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the
ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the
offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by
the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify
the exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends
of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately
on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the
dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,
the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of
a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;
and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the State have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would be justified
in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour.
The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the balance."
17. Subsequently, a three judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC
688 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, has
held as follows:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of
the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when
the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not
have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise
etc."
18. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the
instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings
based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
19. The defacto complainant has given a complaint in respect of land
dispute. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the accused had
grabbed the property by fabrication of documents. It is the claim of the
petitioners/accused that they are in possession of the property and in respect
of the properties civil disputes were pending between the parties. The
parties have compromised the matter and they have also filed memorandum
of compromise on 22.04.2021, based on which Appeals suits pending before
this Court were disposed of by an common judgment dated 26.04.2021. In
Clause 13 of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise, the parties have
agreed that all disputes, criminal complaints before any forum in relation to
the schedule mentioned property amongst the parties shall be treated as
"settled" and shall not be proceeded with further.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
20. As stated above, the dispute between the parties seems to be
private in nature and they may not have any social impact. Further, in view
of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also
remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, the continuity of the
criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and frustration to the
parties and hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this court is inclined
to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Though the
petition has been filed by the petitioner/first accused alone, in view of the
Joint Memo of Compromise no useful purpose will be served by keeping
the case pending as against the remaining accused also.
21. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as
a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.5222 of 2020, on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID, Egmore, is quashed in
respect of all the accused. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
07.03.2022
tsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID,
Egmore.
2.The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch – I,
Team-XVII,
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2021
tsh
Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2022
07.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
