Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Sasikumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.M.P. No. 5641 of 2026 | C.C. No. 4951 of 2023 | Cr.No. 351 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M. Selvam
For the Respondents: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted by Harshana T. for R1
Non-compoundable offences of personal nature can be quashed on compromise if no public interest is affected.
Headnote:The judgment involves offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 120
(B) IPC relating to forged documents used in a property sale. Essential facts include the de facto complainant purchasing property, discovering unauthorized sale and mortgage via forged documents by accused, leading to a complaint. The court found that petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, entered a compromise with the complainant, restoring possession, and that the offences were personal in nature without public interest override. The primary issue framed was whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed based on compromise. The ratio decidendi draws from Supreme Court guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir case, emphasizing examination of whether the crime is individual or against society; here, it was held purely personal, allowing quashing under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.). The proceedings in C.C. No. 4951 of 2023 were quashed against the petitioners alone.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek quashing for forgery offences in property fraud. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compromise with complainant confirms innocent purchasers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. personal non-compoundable offences quashable absent public interest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. proceedings quashed against petitioners only. (Para 13) |
For Petitioners :: Mr.M. Selvam For Respondents :: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted by Harshana T. for R1 O R D E R The petitioners/A3 & A4 in C.C. No. 4951 of 2023, who are facing trial for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468,471, 420r/w
120(B) IPC have filed this quash application.
2. The case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant purchased a property situated in Tambaram Taluk, Kottivakkam Village, Nehru Nagar 1st Main Road bearing Plot No. 189 comprised in S.No. 317/70B measuring to an extent of 3600 sq. ft vide sale deed dated 01.02.2007 registered as document No. 174/2007 from one C. Kalpagam and on 28.08.2013, when the de facto complainant inspected the property, he found that fencing was removed and some construction activities were going on. After enquiry and on obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate, it was found that one Tamilmani (A1), who is the power agent of one Rani(A2) had created forged documents and sold the property to Sasikumar (A3) through his power agent Thangavelu (A4) under Document No. 111 of 2007. Further, the property was mortgaged with Karur Vysya Bank and loan of Rs.55,00,000/- availed. Hence, complaint lodged. On completion of investigation, respondent Police filed final report listing 10 witnesses and documents.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent purchasers. They did not create any forged documents and cheated the de facto complainant. In this case, de facto complainant had filed a Civil Suit in O.S. NO. 103 of 2015 before the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in which apart from petitioners, the Manager of Karur Vysya Bank was also a defendant. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 25.04.2025 pursuant to compromise entered between de facto complainant and petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the judgment and decree, the same has been registered in Document No. 3307 of 2025 before SRO, Adyar. Now, the encumbrance created removed and the de facto complainant put in possession of the property.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent submitted that in this case, the prime accused are A1 and A2 and petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The petitioners were not aware about the creation of any forged documents.
5. Now, that the de facto complainant has been put in possession of the property pursuant to the compromise entered between him and petitioners and the issue has been amicably settled, de facto complainant does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo filed.
6. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by E. Bindhu, SSI 20905, CCB Chennai LFIW-I, Gamma-3.
7. On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant, who is present confirmed that petitioners are innocent purchasers and has no objection for quashing the case as against these two petitioners alone, who are A3 and A4.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed this Court that the role of the petitioners is distinct from that of A1 and A2 and hence, compromise not effected as against A1 and A2.
9. The Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated
03.02.2026 is scanned and reproduced below:
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can b
