Solai Ravi @ Ravikumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Cbcid

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.O.P(MD) Nos.8095, 9553 and 13249 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.8700, 14620, 9903 and 14622 of 2026 Crl.O.P(MD) No.8095 of 2026: Solai Ravi @ Ravikumar ... Petitioner/ Accused No.6

Vs

¶1State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, (Crime No.1 of 2026) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant

¶2Jayarajkumar ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Thanjavur District and quash the same as against the petitioner/Accused. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For R1 : Mr.B.Arun Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.R.Laxman Crl.O.P(MD) No.9553 of 2026:

¶1Francis

¶2Stella

¶3Ruban @ Robin ... Petitioners/ Accused No.3 to 5

Vs

¶1State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, (Crime No.1 of 2026) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant

¶2Jayarajkumar ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Thanjavur District and quash the same as against the petitioners/Accused. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha for Mr.C.R.Malarvannan For R1 : Mr.B.Arun Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.R.Laxman Crl.O.P(MD) No.13249 of 2026:

¶1Vijay

¶2Ramana ... Petitioners/ Accused No.1 and 2

Vs

¶1State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, CBCID South, (Crime No.1 of 2026) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant

¶2Jayarajkumar ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the complaint in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same as illegal and for consequential orders and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Azhagesan For R1 : Mr.B.Arun Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.R.Laxman

C O M M O N O R D E R These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the accused persons in Crime No.01 of 2026, on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the FIR, wherein they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 406 and 506(1) of IPC.

¶2Pending investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein the defacto complainant has agreed for quashing of the FIR.

¶3Today, the defacto complainant had appeared before this Court in person and submitted that he had lost a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs only) in the transaction and the entire amount has been recovered by him and therefore, he has no objection for quashing of the FIR.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent raised strong objections for recording of the compromise. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10078 of 2023, dated 20.12.2024 between (Anil Bhavarlal Jain and another Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others) and had contended that when the allegations related to economic offences involving financial and economic well-being of the State and which would have implications beyond the domain of a mere dispute between the private disputants, the FIR or the Charge Sheet cannot be quashed. He further submitted that the FIR came to be registered only after an awareness campaign conducted by the respondent police officials. He also pointed out that similar cases are pending as against some of the accused persons and therefore, he raised strong objections for recording of the compromise.

¶5A perusal of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was referred to by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent reveals that it arises under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That apart, here the defacto complainant who is a private individual has been cheated to an extent of 1.60 Crores and according to him, the entire amount has been recovered. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment cited by the learned Government Advocate is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶6Pending investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise and the defacto complainant had appeared before this Court in person and submitted that he has no objection for recording the compromise in view of the recovery of the entire amount which he had lost in the illegal transaction.

¶7In view of the above said facts, the FIR in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police stands quashed. Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

21.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To

¶1The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station,

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. ebsi Crl.O.P(MD) Nos.8095, 9553 and 13249 of 2026

21.07.2026