IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.O.P.No.25686 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 1.K.Dhamodharan 2.G.Chandrasekar ...Petitioners/Accused -Vs- State represented by 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 2. C.K.V.Madan ...Respondents (impleaded the 2nd respondent as per the order of this Court dated 25.11.2009) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.9124 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same as the matter is settled out of Court. For Petitioners : Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Saravanan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.A.S.Madhivanan O R D E R The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9124 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, as the matter is settled out of Court. 2.A dispute has arisen between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in the case, who has been impleaded as 2nd respondent under orders of this Court dated 25.11.2009. The dispute relates to mortgage of property of the defacto complainant, wherein the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners impersonated the defacto complainant and without his knowledge, mortgaged his property for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, case in Crime No.691/2002 for offences under Sections 406 r/w. 109, 410, 420 r/w.34, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 468 IPC came to be registered against the petitioners. 3.In the present petition to quash, the petitioners inform that the matter is essentially a civil dispute and when the matter has ripened for trial, the parties compromised the matter and both the parties signed in the compounding petition before the Bank. The petitioners also inform that the Bank Officials refused to release the document on the ground that the matter is pending before the Criminal Court. 4.It now is informed by both learned counsel that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent stands settled out of Court. In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2008(3) Crimes 377 (SC), the Honourable Apex Court in a case which had overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets, thought it fit that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. This Court finds the present case, as one, where it would be appropriate to follow the said rationale. 5.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.9124 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2 cc To Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR.56834 CRL.O.P.No.25686 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 PUR (CO)/RH (12.8.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/