Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 54540 (MAD)

B.SUBRAMANI v. State rep by

CRL OP/5042/2026 · 2026-07-22

D Bharatha Chakravarthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 1. B.Subramani S/o. Balakrishnan, No.9/23, Vandiyamman koil Street, Padikuppam, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. 2. I.Kaleff @ Isaiah S/o.Isaiah, No.6/18, Thiripurasundari Colony, Rajaji Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State rep by The inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.41 of 2025) 2. M.Bharanidharan S/o.Meenakshi Sundaram, No.26-A, Sivaprakasam Nagar, 1st Main Road, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai 600 091. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, praying to call for the records relating to the Cr.No.41 of 2025, on the file of the 1 st respondent and to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.P.Sathya Murthy For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr. N.Kamalanathan for R2 ORDER 1. This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.41 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Police Station, Chennai for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of I.P.C. on the ground of compromise between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further. 2. The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.p.c. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments. 3. The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that the de facto complainant alleges that with reference to his property when the original documents were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 lost and he was searching, abusing and misusing the said document, certain false documents were registered and his property was dealt with by the accused and the accused tried to cheat him. Subsequently it is stated that the parties have ironed out their differences between them. 4. Thus, it can be seen that this matter is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise. 5. Accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No. 5042 of 2026 stands allowed. The F.I.R. in Crime No. 41 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Police Station, Chennai stands quashed. 22-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To 1. The inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Police Station, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J. RPP CRL OP No. 5042 of 2026 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis