Madras High Court
Stephen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14113 of 2024
1.Stephen
2.Bala Subramani
3.Leon
4.Antony Matharasan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, through its,
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South, Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.1 of 2024)
2.Meenakshi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.1 of 2024, dated
21.08.2024, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID South
Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Mohamed Asif
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For R2 : Mr.P.Shanmugavel
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.1 of 2024 for
offences under Sections 120(B), 416, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, and
471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), have filed the quash application,
invoking Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
orders to quash the proceedings in the above said crime number.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent (the
de-facto complainant) lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Earlier,
a case in Crime No.53 of 2015 was registered by the District Crime
Branch, which was later transferred to the present respondent's file on the
orders of this Court. Subsequently, Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered.
2.1. According to the de-facto complainant, her late husband
Subramanian had purchased a plot measuring 11-3/8 cents in Survey No.
545/5 at Agastheeswaram Village on 11.01.2000, from Ramachandran
and Rethinakumari. The transaction was registered as Document No.295
of 2000. Subsequently, on 16.01.2008, due to urgent business needs and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
to take a loan from the first petitioner (A1), the original title deeds were
handed over to A1. The de-facto complainant and her husband regularly
repaid the interest on the loan, and by 26.12.2010, the full loan was
repaid.
2.2. On 01.10.2011, when the de-facto complainant and her
husband requested the return of the original title deeds, the first
petitioner informed them that the documents had been misplaced, and
later, he informed that they had been lost. On 03.03.2011, a Power of
Attorney (Document No.128 of 2011) was executed in favour of the first
petitioner. Using the said Power of Attorney, the first petitioner executed
a sale deed on 16.08.2011 in favour of Antony Benito. Subsequently,
Antony Benito executed a sale deed on 06.03.2012 in favour of
Boopathi, who later executed another sale deed in favour of Matlin
Shiyama.
2.3. The property was mortgaged by A1 to A5 with Canara Bank,
Kanyakumari Branch. Upon investigation, the de-facto complainant
came to know that A2 (the document writer), A3 (the impersonator), and
A4 and A5 (the witnesses who identified the impersonator and witnessed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
the document) had conspired together to create forged documents and
encumbrances on the property. Hence, the complaint was lodged.
2.4. The de-facto complainant had also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.
8 of 2017 to protect the property. After the investigation, the statement of
the de-facto complainant was recorded, and the necessary documents
were collected. The investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the de-
facto complainant and the petitioners have reached a compromise and
have now filed a joint compromise memo based on the agreement they
arrived at.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the de-
facto complainant, after the death of her husband, was without proper
guidance and, in haste, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners
had committed forgery. It was pointed out to the de-facto complainant
that her late husband had previously executed a registered Power of
Attorney (Document No.128 of 2011). Based on the said power and
authorization, the sale deed was executed, and the de-facto complainant's
husband was aware of the transaction and had received a payment. Now,
the de-facto complainant, having realized the value of the property, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
agreed to a compromise, provided the payment is made according to the
market value.
3.1. The learned counsel further submits that on 29.11.2024, both
the first petitioner and the second respondent (the de-facto complainant),
along with her two daughters, R.Sintha and S.Kala, entered into a
compromise. They agreed to ratify the actions of the petitioners, not to
create any further rights over the property, and recognized the present
owner, Matlin Shiyama, as the rightful owner. The de-facto complainant
also undertook to withdraw the civil suit in O.S.No.8 of 2017 and the
criminal case in Crime No.53 of 2015, which has been re-registered as
Crime No.1 of 2024.
3.2. The learned counsel further submits that according to the
agreement, a total amount of Rs.53,00,000/- was paid, as per the market
rate for the property. This amount was paid through demand drafts drawn
on the State Bank of India, Kanyakumari Branch, between 30.10.2024
and 27.11.2024, in ten installments. Further, it was agreed that the de-
facto complainant, Meenakshi (W/o.Late Subramanian), along with her
daughters, R.Sintha and S.Kala (the legal heirs of Late Subramanian),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
would execute a sale deed in favour of Matlin Shiyama. The second
respondent has also submitted a letter to the first respondent Police
confirming the compromise, the receipt of Rs.53,00,000/-, and the
intention to execute the sale deed in favour of Matlin Shiyama by the
legal heirs of late Subramanian. Therefore, as per the compromise,
nothing further remains for adjudication, and the petitioners have prayed
for the quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of
the first respondent Police.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), on the other
hand, submits that, based on the complaint of the de-facto complainant,
an initial case in Crime No.53 of 2015 was registered by the District
Crime Branch, Kanyakumari. However, there was minimal progress in
the investigation, and the case was eventually put in cold storage. The
de-facto complainant then filed a direction petition before this Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4010 of 2024. Upon finding that the District Crime
Branch was not properly investigating the case, this Court transferred the
investigation to the present respondent, namely, the C.B.C.I.D. The case
was re-registered by the C.B.C.I.D. on 21.08.2024, and the investigation
is now ongoing. Statements from some witnesses have been recorded,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
and some documents have been collected. In the meantime, the second
respondent (de-facto complainant) filed a compromise agreement and a
letter indicating that she no longer intends to pursue the complaint and
seeks the closure of the case. The compromise was verified, and it was
confirmed that it was made without any force, threat, or coercion. The
payment of Rs.53,00,000/- has been confirmed, and the legal heirs of
Subramanian have acknowledged the receipt of this amount through
demand drafts.
4.1. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) further
submits that the execution of the Power of Attorney by the late
Subramanian in favour of the first petitioner (A1) is not in dispute.
Regarding the execution of one particular document, there is some doubt,
which can only be clarified upon completion of the investigation. Apart
from this one incident, there have been no similar actions by the
petitioners.
4.2. Now, the petitioners and the second respondent (de-facto
complainant) have reached a compromise. The second respondent has
appeared before this Court, confirmed the compromise and the receipt of
Rs.53,00,000/-, and stated that she is not willing to pursue the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
further. She also confirmed that she and her daughters, namely, R.Sintha
and S.Kala, who are the legal heirs of the late Subramanian, have agreed
to execute a sale deed in favour of Matlin Shiyama. Consequently, the
encumbrance on the property has been cleared.
5. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court
which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and
also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second
respondent are present before this Court and and they were identified by
the respondent Police as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the
parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that
the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
6. In the instant case, the parties have now compromised the issue.
Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to
power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 120(B), 416,
418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the I.P.C.
7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
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.1 of 2024, as against the petitioners
pending before the respondent Police.
9. In view of the above, this Court hereby quashes the proceedings
pending against the petitioners (A1, A2, A4, and A5), including A3, in
Crime No.1 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police. Accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The joint compromise memo
shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South, Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari 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.22618 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22618 of 2024
Dated: 28.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
