(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.350 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Chengalpet and quash the final report filed against the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner/A7 in C.C.No.350 of 2016 facing trial for offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet, has filed this Criminal Original Petition.

2. Since the defacto complainant Raji died on 17.09.2019, his legal heir Mr.Jagadeesan impleaded as R2 by order dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.6346 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.13728 of 2025. Likewise Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited) impleaded as R3 by order dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.6348 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.13728 of 2025.

3. Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raji, S/o.Kanthappa Naicker lodged a complaint on 17.06.2013 and a case in Crime No.48 of 2013 registered. The complaint is that the defacto complainant inherited properties situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam from forefathers, got divided among defacto complainant’s father and father’s siblings by way of Koorchit on 22.07.1939. Thereafter, property devolved on defacto complainant and his brother Munusamy, the property in survey No.118/6B of 6 cents in patta No.161 stood in their name and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. This being so, Natarajan/A1, his wife Gangammal/A2 and A1’s brothers/A3 to A5 executed power of attorney in favour of M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A6, based on which, A6 sold the subject property to the petitioner/A7 vide document No.2532 of 2000 on 28.08.2000. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.03.2012 which enquired by Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet in CSR.No.487 of 2011, thereafter, no action taken, hence, petitioner filed direction petition in Crl.M.P.No.21164 of 2012, thereafter case came to be registered on 17.06.2013 in Crime No.48 of 2013 for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 28.09.2016 and taken on file on 23.12.2016 against seven accused persons in C.C.No.350 of 2016 listing nine witnesses and documents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner arrayed as A7 in this case. The petitioner employed previously as Senior Assistant Manager (Legal) in M/s.Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited, from 1997 to 2005 and later employed in M/s.Banzai Estates Private Limited as Senior Manager (Legal). Subsequently he joined M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited as Senior Manager (Legal) in the year 2005 and rose to the position of Vice President (Legal) lastly in October 2022, retired from the service. Thereafter, he renewed his enrollment in Bar Council and practising as Advocate. In this case, during investigation, the petitioner not called for any enquiry and no clarification sought. After filing of charge sheet before the trial Court, NBW issued against the petitioner, thereafter petitioner came to know he was arrayed as accused. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the year 1999-2000. The petitioner employed in M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited as Senior Manager (Legal) on 23.09.2005 and retired on 31.10.2022, the letter of M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited produced. The petitioner wrongly identified as Managing Director of M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited. He never held the position of Managing Director at any point of time.

5. He further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint in the year 2013 i.e., after 13 years. It is purely a civil dispute given criminal colour. M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Mahindra Industrial Park Limited) in partnership with TIDCO, a fully owned enterprises of Government of Tamil Nadu, was in the process of setting up Industrial Park in Chengalpet. Hence vast track of lands acquired. In this case, none of the witnesses stated anything against the petitioner. It is seen some dispute arose between the defacto complainant and vendor to the petitioner’s vendor/A1. Be that as it may, now the defacto complainant died, his legal heir impleaded as R2. He came forward, resolved the issue and agreed to receive alternate property in lieu of the subject property. In this regard, the petitioner/A7 and defacto complainant’s legal heir entered into joint affidavit of compromise and memo of compromise, both produced. Hence, he sought for quashing the proceedings.

6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that the defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 17.06.2013, a case in Crime No.48 of 2013 for offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 & 471 of IPC registered. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed against seven persons and taken on file as C.C.No.350 of 2016 on 23.12.2016. The defacto complainant’s father born along with three brothers viz., Varathapa Naicker, Murugappanar and Chinna Kozhanthai. The defacto complainant’s father is the third one. The ancestral property divided among the defacto complainant’s father and his uncles by apportioning as four parts, in Schedule A, B, C & D. The defacto complainant’s father got Schedule C, along with other properties including the property in survey No.118/6B of 6 cents devolved. Some part of inherited properties in survey Nos.106/4, 106/6, 106/7 of 35 cents and in survey Nos.106/4B, 106/5, 106/7A of 35 cents, in total 70 cents, sold to Gangammal/A2 wife of Natarajan/A1 on 25.01.1996 in document No.183 of 1996. Later on the objection of the defacto complainant, by document No.138 of 1999, property in survey No.118/6B, cancelled. Later A1 approached defacto complainant to sell the land in survey No.118/6B and 118/4C since it was abutting the main road and leads the way for other properties, the defacto complainant refused to sell the land. Later defacto complainant found A1 to A5 gave power to M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A6 vide document No.283 of 1999 dated 16.06.1999 and another power vide document No.340 of 1999 on 09.10.1999, thereafter, A6 sold properties to the petitioner/A7 Company vide document No.2532 of 2000 on 28.08.2000 without any legal right. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing nine witnesses and documents. LW1 is the defacto complainant and LW2 is his son, the 2nd respondent. LW3, the villager confirmed that the subject property belongs to the defacto complainant. In presence of LW4 & LW5, A1 arrested on 18.06.2013. LW4 & LW5 admitted creation of forged document pertaining to the disputed property. LW6 the Sub Registrar confirmed registration of power of attorney in document No.283 of 1999 by A1 to A5 in favour of A6 and A6 sold the property in document No.2532 of 2000 on 28.08.2000 to the petitioner/A7. The copy of the documents produced. LW7 the Village Administrative officer confirmed that in A-Register, Patta, Chitta, Adangal and FMB Sketch, A7 Company name mutated.

7. He further submitted that the issue now resolved and legal heir of defacto complainant all executed compromise affidavit. The defacto complainant produced legal heir certificate, joint affidavit of compromise and memo of compromise to the 1st respondent Police.

8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the vendor to the petitioner’s vendor/A1 inherited the property situated at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyampakkam. The defacto complainant also inherited properties from his forefathers. The property in survey No.118/6B apportioned to defacto complainant which was sold by A1 to the employer of petitioner/A7 through power of attorney viz., M/s.Ohm Sakthi Agency/A6.

9. Be that as it may, the issue between defacto complainant’s legal heir and petitioner/A7 now resolved. The defacto complainant’s legal heir agreed to received alternate land from the employer of petitioner/A7 in lieu to the subject property.

10. From the memorandum of compromise, it is seen that the Item No.1 of Schedule-A is the property in dispute and Schedule-B properties three in number settled to the legal heir of the defacto complainant. The document for alternate properties submitted for registration with the Joint Registrar-II, Chengalpet and kept as pending document on 08.04.2026.

11. Scanned reproduction of (i)legal heir certificate dated 21.06.2022 (ii)Memo of Compromise dated 07.04.2026, (iii)Joint Affidavit of Compromise dated 17.04.2026 and (iv)Receipts for registration of alternate properties, are as follows:

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

12. Today the petitioner and R2 along with remaining legal heir of Raji appeared before this Court and their identity confirmed by Ms.B.Jayachithra, Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court had interaction with R2 and other legal heirs all confirmed the settlement arrived with the petitioner by getting alternate property in lieu of the disputed property.

13. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641- (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl (10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the proceedings.

14. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.350 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet is quashed against the petitioner and against all accused who are similarly placed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.