IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

Crl.O.P.No.27172 of 2015

S.Anandraj

... Petitioner

Vs

1.State by

The Inspector of Police,

Uthukuli Police Station,

Tiruppur District.

2.C.Karupswamy,

3.The Inspector of Police,

Anti Land Grabbing Cell,

Tiruppur.

... Respondents

(R3 impleaded as per order dt 17.11.2015

in M.P.No.1 of 2015)

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in

Crime No.69 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of the

respondent-Police and to quash the same by allowing this

criminal original petition.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Vinothkumar

For respondents

:Mr.C.Emalias, APP (For R1)

Mr.S.Benazir (For R2)

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition has been filed

praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime

No.69 of 2013 pending investigation on the file of the

respondents-Police and to quash the same. The petitioner herein

has been arrayed as 1^st accused in the said criminal case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.In the affidavit filed in support of this petition,

it is stated by the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent herein /

defacto-complainant lodged a complainant against the petitioner

herein and two others. As per the allegations in the FIR, the

defacto-complainant/R2 is the owner of the property situated at

S.No.150/1 measuring to an extent of 2.86 acres. When the

defacto-complainant decided to start the business, he sought for

a loan amount to the tune of Rs.2 crores from the petitioner

herein/A1. The petitioner was introduced to the defacto-

complainant, through Ramsingh (A2) and Jacob (A3). It was

informed to the defacto-complainant that in order to avail loan

amount of Rs.2 crores, the defacto-complainant has to

execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly,

the defacto-complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the

petitioner vide Doc.No.3079/2012 on the file of the Sub-

Registrar, Uthukuli; but, loan amount was not given to the

defacto-complainant. Hence, the complaint was lodged by the

defacto-complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a

case in Crime No.69 of 2013 under Sections 120(B), 406, 420,

447, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and under Section 82 of Indian

Registration Act, 1908, was filed as against the petitioner

herein and two others. Now, the petitioner has come forward

with the present petition seeking to quash the first information

report.

3.When the matter was listed on 16.11.2015, both the

petitioner/A1 and the 2^nd respondent/defacto-complainant appeared

before this Court in person and informed the Court that they

have amicably settled the matter and they sought time to file

memo of compromise. Today, when the matter is taken up for

consideration, they filed a memo of compromise before this Court

stating that the petitioner/A1 agreed to execute a sale deed in

favour of one Shanmuga Subramaniam, who is nominated by the

defacto-complainant. It is further agreed by the petitioner

under the said memo of compromise that the alleged sale deed

executed in favour of the petitioner by the defacto-complainant

bearing Doc.No.3079/2012 dated 04.05.2012, which is now in

custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perumdurai, would be

handed over to the defacto-complainant. The defacto-

complainant is also willing to withdraw the complaint filed

against the petitioner.

4.The memo of compromise, dated 06.11.2015, filed by the

parties is recorded. In view of the compromise arrived at

between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant, the impugned

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

criminal proceedings relating to the FIR in Crime No.69 of 2013

pending on the file of the respondents-Police is quashed so far