Madras High Court
Dhanasekaran vs State Rep. By Its on 6 November, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by its:-
1.The Inspector of Police (Crime),
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
(Crime No.19 of 2024)
2.C.Kannan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.19 of 2024, dated
24.07.2024, on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Subash Law Office
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
For R2 : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section
528 B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking orders to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.19 of
2024 dated 24.07.2024, pending on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de-
facto complainant has been running a trading business under the name
and style of AINAJM Sand and Stones in Dubai since 2001. In January
2021, in order to secure a loan for purchasing trucks for his business, the
de-facto complainant contacted one Vinoth, who operates a jewelry shop
named 'Vasantham' in Theni. At that time, Vinoth introduced Ramesh
and Ramasamy to the de-facto complainant. In March 2022, when the de-
facto complainant approached Ramesh and Ramasamy, through Vinoth,
for a loan, they introduced him to the petitioner, who resides in
Mannarkudi and runs CD Monetary Advisory (S) Private Limited in
Kumbakonam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
2.1. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant requested the
petitioner to arrange a loan of Rs.100 Crores for purchasing 35 trucks.
The petitioner informed him that he would need to deposit 1% as an
advance to the Bank to process the loan. The de-facto complainant asked
for time to arrange the money and went to Dubai. Afterwards, the
petitioner visited the de-facto complainant's company in Dubai.
2.2. On 20.04.2022, the petitioner received a cheque and
documents from the de-facto complainant and later sent a letter stating
that the de-facto complainant would need to pay a sum of
Rs.79,27,73,342/- as a deposit within 15 days. On 09.05.2022, the de-
facto complainant signed the Final Terms Sheet and Mortgage Deed,
which had been prepared by the petitioner.
2.3. On 20.05.2022, the petitioner received Rs. 45,00,000/- in cash
from the de-facto complainant at his house, in the presence of the de-
facto complainant's wife and relatives. On 25.05.2022, the de-facto
complainant visited the petitioner's house and gave Rs. 44,00,000/-, for
which the petitioner issued an ICICI Bank cheque. However, despite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
receiving the funds, the petitioner did not arrange the loan for the de-
facto complainant.
2.4. The de-facto complainant then approached Vinoth, Ramesh,
and Ramasamy, asking them to recover the money from the petitioner.
They collected Rs.34,00,000/- from the petitioner in three installments
and returned it to the de-facto complainant. However, the petitioner
delayed repayment of the remaining amount. When the de-facto
complainant asked for the balance, the petitioner asked him to deposit his
cheque for collection.
2.5. When the cheque was deposited through the bank, it was
returned on 04.08.2022 due to "insufficient funds." Subsequently, the
petitioner issued another cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-, but this cheque was
also returned. When the de-facto complainant demanded repayment, the
petitioner abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with
dire consequences. Hence, the second respondent / de-facto complainant
lodged a complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second
respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and
on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.19 of 2024, dated
24.07.2024 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 120-B, 294(b) and
506(i) I.P.C. against the petitioner.
4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the
parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 29.10.2024, has been filed
before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner and the second
respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the
second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they
were identified by Mr.M.Chandran, Special Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Theni District, as well as by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement
between themselves.
6. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now
the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences
under Sections 417, 420, 120-B, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C.
7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of
Gujrath) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
8. In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping
the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2024, pending before the first
respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2024, on the file of the
first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 29.10.2024, shall form part and parcel of this order.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Inspector of Police (Crime),
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2024
Dated: 06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
