IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Panneerselvam …. Petitioner Vs

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Tambaram, Chengalpattu.

Crime No.313 of 2023

2. Dr. Parasakthi …. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.313 of 2023 on the file of Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Tambaram, Chengalpattu District and to quash the same and accept the compromise memo to allow the above Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.side)

For R2 : Mr.V.Srihari

O RDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.313 of 2023, pending against the petitioner, on the file of the first respondent police, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, the aforesaid case in Crime No. 313 of 2023 was registered on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 384 and

506(1) of the BNS, 2023.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practising advocate. He further submitted that the petitioner happened to meet A1, Mahitha Anna Christy and the de facto complainant at Paranur Toll Gate. The petitioner was not aware that the said Mahitha Anna Christy threatened the de facto complainant and demanded money from her. Based on the threat allegedly wielded by the 1^st accused, the de facto complainant handed over a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 1^st accused. However, since the petitioner was found along with the 1^st accused at that time, the de facto complainant mistakenly included the petitioner’s name in the complaint and thus, he has been arrayed as second accused in this case. He further submitted that the entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs had been recovered from A1 and no amount has been recovered from the petitioner. Subsequently, realising that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence, the de facto complainant agreed to compromise the matter and has filed a joint compromise memo along with a supporting affidavit for quashing of the First Information Report in respect of the petitioner alone.

5. The petitioner is present before this Court. He submitted that he is a practising advocate at Chengalpattu and he had met the 1^st accused and the de facto complainant at the Paranur Toll Gate. He further submitted that whatever transpired between the 1^st accused and the de facto complainant was not within his knowledge and that he has been wrongly implicated in this case.

6. Mr.Srihari, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the petitioner has been implicated by mistake and that the de facto complainant has no objection to the FIR being quashed in respect of the petitioner alone. The de facto complainant appeared before this Court and stated that the petitioner’s name was included in the complaint by mistake.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there is yet another victim in this case from whom A1 has demanded Rs.2.2 lakhs through one Advocate Saranraj. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

8. This Court called for the Case Diary file and perused the same. On perusal, it is seen that there is a statement given by one Uma Maheswari, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.2.2 lak