CRL. RC No.757 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

CRL. RC No.757 of 2023

B.Mariappan

: Petitioner

versus

1.Inspector of Police,

Special Investigation Cell,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

Chennai-600 028.

2.Tr.N.Sri Renganathan

3.Gandhi Christoper

4.K.Karthikeyan

: Respondents

Petition filed to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.123 of

2023 in C.C.No.3573 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Court at Egmore, dated 21.02.2023.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Murugendran

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl Side)

R2 to R4- Service awaited

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL. RC No.757 of 2023

O R D E R

Petition is filed by the second accused being aggrieved by the

dismissal of his petition to compound offence under Section 420 of

IPC for which he is facing trial before the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Egmore in C.C.No.3573 of 2015.

2. The facts of the case appears that this petitioner along with

A1 had impersonated themselves as members of DVAC and called the

defacto complainant to part away Rs.5,00,000/- to keep him away

from registering a case for corruption. Fearing ignominy, the defacto

complainant had initially parted away Rs.2,75,000/- and the balance

amount of Rs.25,000/- when transferred, A1 was caught by DVAC on

12.07.2012. The name of one Mr.Ponnusamy, DSP of DVAC been

misused by A1 for extorting money. Further investigation has

revealed that the modus operandi of A1 is to call gullible public

servant and intimidate them that he is calling from DVAC office and

dropped the name of senior police official in DVAC and dishonestly

induced them to pay huge money under the threat of prosecution.

Already Ponnusamy, DSP has given a complaint against A1, who had

impersonated himself as Krishanmoorthy, DSP attached to Vigilance

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL. RC No.757 of 2023

and Anti Corruption. Though the defacto complainant as well as the

accused have come forward to compound the offence, the nature of

the offence as stated in the final report is cheating by impersonation

posing himself as police official, working in DVAC, A1 along with A2

had obtained money from the defacto complainant educing him to

part away money under the threat of prosecution. The Trial Court had

taken a view that for compounding offence punishable under Section

420, IPC a person who cheated has to consent for compounding and

in this case, the reputation of the Department has been taken for ride

and it is the Department, which is cheated. Therefore, request for

compounding the offence cannot be acceded.

3. The provision under Section 320 of CrPC which enumerates

offences which can be compounded and by whom. While referring

the offence of cheating, the said Section say the person who is

cheated has to agree for compounding the offence.

4. In this case, the defacto complainant, who has parted

Rs.25,000/- is the person who is really been cheated and he has

come forward to compound the offence. Having filed a petition for

compounding the offence and if the Court is satisfied that the petition

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL. RC No.757 of 2023

is filed without any coercion or threat, there is no impediment for the

Court to entertain the Compounding Petition. Therefore, though the

reasoning for dismissing the application for compounding may sound

logic but it is not in consensus with law as spelt in Section 320, CrPC.

Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is set aside. O.P. 757 of 2023

is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to approach the Trial Court

again, revive his petition for compounding the offence and after due

enquiry,