Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
R.Eswar - Petitioner
Versus
State Rep by its, The Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.13728 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.9161 of 2025
Decided On : 27-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate, Mr.K.Gandhikumar, Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Ms.Aishwarya S Nathan
High Court can quash non-compoundable offence proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if parties settle dispute amicably and no public interest involved.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash proceedings in C.C.No.350 of 2016 for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC arising from a land dispute where accused allegedly forged documents to sell inherited property. The prosecution alleged unauthorized sale via power of attorney leading to criminal conspiracy and forgery. The court noted the dispute's civil nature, inordinate delay in complaint, and lack of evidence against petitioner. Parties' arguments highlighted employment mismatch and resolution via compromise. Issues framed around quashing non-compoundable offences post-settlement. Court relied on Supreme Court guidelines in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, permitting quashal in exceptional cases where continuation serves no purpose. Ratio: Even for serious non-compoundable offences, High Court can quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if dispute settled amicably, ensuring no public interest harmed. Proceedings quashed against petitioner and similarly placed accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash trial proceedings against a7. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution case of forged property sale. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner's defence: delay, civil dispute, compromise. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. settlement via alternate property confirmed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. quashing allowed per supreme court guidelines. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
The petitioner/A7 in C.C.No.350 of 2016 facing trial for offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet, has filed this Criminal Original Petition.
2.Since the defacto complainant Raji died on 17.09.2019, his legal heir Mr.Jagadeesan impleaded as R2 by order dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.6346 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.13728 of 2025. Likewise Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited) impleaded as R3 by order dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.6348 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.13728 of 2025.
3.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raji, S/o.Kanthappa Naicker lodged a complaint on 17.06.2013 and a case in Crime No.48 of 2013 registered. The complaint is that the defacto complainant inherited properties situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam from forefathers, got divided among defacto complainant’s father and father’s siblings by way of Koorchit on 22.07.1939. Thereafter, property devolved on defacto complainant and his brother Munusamy, the property in survey No.118/6B of 6 cents in patta No.161 stood in their name and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. This being so, Natarajan/A1, his wife Gangammal/A2 and A1’s brothers/A3 to A5 executed power of attorney in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A6, based on which, A6 sold the subject property to the petitioner/A7 vide document No.2532 of 2000 on 28.08.2000.The defacto complainant lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.03.2012 which enquired by Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet in CSR.No.487 of 2011, thereafter, no action taken, hence, petitioner filed direction petition in Crl.M.P.No.21164 of 2012, thereafter case came to be registered on 17.06.2013 in Crime No.48 of 2013 for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 28.09.2016 and taken on file on 23.12.2016 against seven accused persons in C.C.No.350 of 2016 listing nine witnesses and documents.
4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner arrayed as A7 in this case. The petitioner employed previously as Senior Assistant Manager (Legal) in M/s.Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited, from 1997 to 2005 and later employed in M/s.Banzai Estates Private Limited as Senior Manager (Legal). Subsequently he joined M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited as Senior Manager (Legal) in the year 2005 and rose to the position of Vice President (Legal) lastly in October 2022, retired from the service. Thereafter, he renewed his enrollment in Bar Council and practising as Advocate. In this case, during investigation, the petitioner not called for any enquiry and no clarification sought. After filing of charge sheet before the trial Court, NBW issued against the petitioner, thereafter petitioner came to know he was arrayed as accused. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the year 1999-2000. The petitioner employed in M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited as Senior Manager (Legal) on 23.09.2005 and retired on 31.10.2022, the letter of M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited produced. The petitioner wrongly identified as Managing Director of M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited. He never held the position of Managing Director at any point of time.
5.He further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint in the year 2013 i.e., after 13 years. It is purely a civil dispute given criminal colour. M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerl
