Madras High Court
Raju vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 24 July, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.10049 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7439 and 7440 of 2025
1. Raju
2. Sriram
3. Mahalakshmi
4. Ananthakrishnan
5. Bharati
6. Mala ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Cell,
Dindigul.
2. K.Arumugam
3. Jakir Hussain ...Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.92 of 2025 pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same insofar
as the petitioners are concerned.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Ilango,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.T.Nishanth
For R1 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 and R3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.92 of 2025 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. They are facing the
charges for the offence under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471,
448, 294B and 506(i) IPC. They moved this petition seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2025 pending against them, on the ground of
compromise.
2. This Court, by its earlier order dated 17.06.2025, directed the
respondent Police to ascertain as to whether the compromise arrived at
between the parties is a genuine one and without any threat or coercive and
adjourned the matter for appearance of parties.
3. When this petition was taken up for hearing on 30.06.2025, the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
defacto complainants have expressed their concern that they have not agreed
for the terms of compromise. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the defacto complainants, in fact, agreed for the
compromise and also received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of a Demand
Draft. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel requested to adjourn this
matter to some other day to persuade the defacto complainant to solve the
issue amicably. Considering the request made by the learned Senior
Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2025.
4. When this petition was taken up for hearing on 02.07.2025, the
learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to adjourn the matter
for appearance of the learned Senior Counsel. Therefore, the matter was
adjourned today.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that they would argue the case on merits.
6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainants submits that the
petitioners have already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
Special Court for Exclusive trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and also
canvassed their grounds in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 and this Court, by
order dated 10.11.2023, dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, this petition
is filed on the ground of compromise.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
8. This petition is filed on the ground of compromise. The defacto
complainants have made it clear that they are not inclined for compromise.
The learned counsel for the defacto complainants also submits that the
defacto complainants are inclined to return the amount, which they have
received from the petitioners.
10. It is also reported before this Court that the petitioners have
already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 and the same was
also dismissed by this Court on merits, by order dated 10.11.2023.
11. Considering the fact that the earlier petition by the petitioners in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court on merits and
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
this petition has been filed on the ground of compromise, which is also not
agreeable for the defacto complainants, this Criminal Original Petition is
closed with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application after a
compromise arrived at between the parties or on new grounds. The defacto
complainants shall return the amount within a period of two weeks.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.07.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes
ogy
To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Dindigul.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Cell,
Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2025
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
Crl.OP(MD)No.10049 of 2025
24.07.2025
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 03:12:23 pm )