VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Muthuganesh v. The State of Tamilnadu

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
6 July 2026
Bench
R.Vijayakumarauthor
Case no.
CRL OP(MD) 16910/2024

Follow Madras High CourtFollow R.Vijayakumar

Judgment

ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed by the sole accused in Cr.No.45/2023 on the file of the 1st respondent police, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein the petitioner is charged with the offence under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC.

¶2At the request of the learner Counsels appearing on either side, the matter was referred to mediation. The mediation is successful and the complainant is willing to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the sole accused and he has no objection for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶3For the payment of the above said amount, the parties have further agreed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be paid today, i.e., on 06.07.2026 and the balance amount shall be paid on or before 06.10.2026. The settlement arrived at in paragraph no.6 of the mediation is extracted as follows:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:- a) The matter settled amicably between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. b) The petitioner agrees to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as full and final settlement to the 2nd respondent. c) The 2nd respondent agrees to receive the said amount Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards the entire claim against the petitioner as full and final settlement regarding the demand against the petitioner. d) The petitioner agrees to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of D.D. (Demand Draft) on 06.07.2026 and further agrees to pay the remaining sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within 06.10.2026. e) The 2nd respondent has no objection for the quashment of the FIR against the petitioner herein."

¶4In view of the above said facts, the charge sheet in the FIR in Cr.No. 45 of 2023, on the file of the 1st respondent police stand quashed. However, the defacto complainant would be at liberty to revive the FIR in case remaining sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is not paid before 06.10.2026.

¶5The criminal original petition stands allowed with the above observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rgm To:

¶1The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, Virudhunagar District (Crime No. 45 of 2023)

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

, J.

rgm Crl.O.P(MD).No.16910 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.10637 of 2024

06.07.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.O.P(MD).No.16910 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.10637 of 2024 Muthuganesh ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, Virudhunagar District (Crime No. 45 of 2023) 2. Valarmathi ... Respondents PRAYER: To call for the records relating to in Crime No. 45/2023 on the file of the Virudhunagar Bazar Police Station, Virudhunagar District and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner. For petitioners : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran For R1 : Mr.B.Arun Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Balakrishnan

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.