Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 58117 (MAD)

Deivajothi v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

CRL OP/19952/2026 · 2026-07-24

D Bharatha Chakravarthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 1. Deivajothi D/o.Ananda Sorupa, Gems Park Avenue, Mogappair West, Chennai - 600 037. 2. Radjan S/o.Loganathan, No.15/8, Rajendraprasad Street, Vinayagapuram, Orgadam Stop, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police CCB-1, Police Station, Chennai. 2. Loganathan S/o.Raju, No.S.No.32, Anandapuram 2nd Street, Pakkamudayanpet, Puducherry. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.465 of 2018 on the file of 1st Respondent and Quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mannarmannan.P For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash Crime No.465 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent Police for alleged offences under Sections 420 & 34 of IPC, 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 prosecution is that the father has given a complaint against the son as if he had cheated certain amounts. It is now stated that the differences have been ironed out between the father and son. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. Accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No.19952 of 2026 stands allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.465 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent / The Inspector of Police, CCB-1 Police Station, Chennai stands quashed. 24-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No KKN To 1. The Inspector of Police CCB-1, Police Station, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. KKN CRL OP No. 19952 of 2026 24-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis