Kala Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

Kala vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 04, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1607477

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1607477
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar
Decided On: Jun 04, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/7291/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kala

Respondent

State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

Excerpt

.....same in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. for petitioner : mr.b.muruganandam for r1 : mr.p.samuel gunasingh counsel for state of tn (crl.side) for r2 : mr.a.david oliverorderthe present petition has been filed by a1 in crime no.30 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the fir, wherein she is alleged to have committed offences under sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of ipc.2. a perusal of the fir reveals that the properties that were owned byone dharmaraj were said to have been sold by the first accused in conveyance with the other accused persons. in fact, the first accused is the first wife of said dharmaraj and the second respondent is the second wife of the said dharmaraj.3. pending investigation, the defacto complainant had come to knowthat the first wife was not involved at all in the alienating the property. she is neither a party to the document nor an attestor. therefore, she had compromised the issue with the first accused and filed a memorandum of joint compromise memo, for quashing of fir as against the first accused.4. the defacto complainant was present in person before this court on 28.04.2026 and sought to quash the fir.5. in view of the above said facts, the fir in crime no.30 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed. the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. ncc : yes/no index : yes / no internet : yes / no to1. the inspector of police,2. the additional public prosecutor, madurai bench of madras high court, madurai.r.vijayakumar,j.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Kala ... Petitioner/Accused -1 Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.30 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. Seethalakshmi ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy, quash the same in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Muruganandam For R1 : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.A.David Oliver

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by A1 in Crime No.30 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police seeking to quash the FIR, wherein she is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the properties that were owned by

one Dharmaraj were said to have been sold by the first accused in conveyance with the other accused persons. In fact, the first accused is the first wife of said Dharmaraj and the second respondent is the second wife of the said Dharmaraj.

3. Pending investigation, the defacto complainant had come to know

that the first wife was not involved at all in the alienating the property. She is neither a party to the document nor an attestor. Therefore, she had compromised the issue with the first accused and filed a memorandum of joint compromise memo, for quashing of FIR as against the first accused.

4. The defacto complainant was present in person before this Court on 28.04.2026 and sought to quash the FIR.

5. In view of the above said facts, the FIR in Crime No.30 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To

1. The Inspector of Police,

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Kala vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar

Public prosecutor Accused person Police Station Relating to high court in person