Madras High Court
CRL A/1161/2025 of G.Rosy Vs T.D.Kalairajan on 18 September 2026
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011349352025}
G.Rosy
Appellant(s)
Vs
T.D.Kalairajan
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419(4) of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.15340 of 2022 and may convict the respondent/accused and thus render justice.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.P.Venugopal
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.A.Ramachandran
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.15340 of 2022, and to convict the respondent/accused.
2. The appellant, as complainant, filed a private complaint against the respondent in C.C.No.15340 of 2022 before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. When the trial of the private complaint was completed and the case was posted for arguments, the respondent filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3796 of 2025, seeking to compound the offences under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of IPC, accompanied by a compromise memo signed by both parties. The said petition was allowed, and the parties were permitted to compound the offences under Section 359 of BNSS. Consequently, the petitions filed by the complainant in Crl.M.P.Nos.3794 & 3797 of 2025, seeking to reopen the case and recall the evidence were allowed, and the appellant has got into the witness box, confirmed the compromise and stated that she did not willing to proceed further with the case. Recording the compromise, the criminal case was dismissed, and the respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
3. It is the case of the appellant that subsequent to the acquittal, the respondent had committed a fraud by making a false undertaking and misrepresentation before the trial Court. He failed to honour three cheques of Rs.3,00,000/- each totalling a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- issued at the time of entering compromise, which were dishonoured upon presentation. Consequently, a legal notice dated 26.04.2025 was caused by the appellant to the respondent and his wife.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent had sent a reply dated 05.05.2025, stating that three cheques were merely given as security but had been misused by the appellant’s Advocate Mr.P.Venugopal. The reply also indicated an intention to lodge a complaint against the said Advocate before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. This reply was issued by Mr.K.A.Ramachandran, Advocate and Notary Public.
5. Mr. K.A.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the respondent appeared before this Court today. Upon being questioned, he admitted that although the reply notice was given in such a manner, no such complaint was ever filed before the Bar Council. In view of the clear misrepresentation, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent had indeed played a fraud, and he fairly
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025 submitted that the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.15330 of 2022 may be set aside.
6. Mr.K.A.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the respondent, confirmed that he had only issued the reply notice dated 05.05.2025 in response to the notice dated 26.04.2025 caused by Mr.P.Venugopal. He submitted that he issued the reply merely based on the instructions given by the respondent, Mr.T.D.Kalairajan S/o. T.M.Dorairaj, who employed in I.C.F at Villivakkam, Chennai, a Central Government Organization. Believing his client’s words, the reply was sent. He reiterated that no complaint has been filed before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. He further submitted that he was unaware of the prior proceedings before the trial Court, since he has not appeared before the trial Court on behalf of the respondent. He fairly conceded that, in the light of the compromise memo and the materials produced by the appellant, the conduct of the respondent was improper, and he left it to this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon a perusal of the materials, it is observed that a private complaint was instituted by the appellant. From the complaint, it is seen that the respondent had collected money from the appellant under the pretext of securing employment for her at the I.C.F, but subsequently failed to either secure the job or return the money. The respondent, being an Office-bearer in the ICF Union, wielded influence within the organization, which led the appellant to believe his representations and part with the money, for which, the complaint has been lodged, evidence was recorded. It was only at the stage of final arguments, petition has been filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.3796 of 2025 along with the compromise memo, which extracted hereunder:
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
9. A perusal of the compromise memo, this Court finds that it bears the signatures of the appellant namely, G.Rosy and the respondent, T.D.Kalairajan and his wife Mrs.K.Kokila Devi. The respondent had undertaken to pay the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- within a period of 30 days, which undertaking was recorded on 14.03.2025. However, the respondent failed to make the payment, and thereafter, notice was caused to the respondent by Mr.P.Venugopal, learned counsel, which reiterates the compromise and the respondent’s undertaking to settle the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent sent a reply notice dated 05.05.2025, containing a stout denial of liability and false allegations, to which a rejoinder was sent by the appellant on 09.05.2025. From the above compromise, it is clear that the respondent has played a fraud on the Court and obtained the impugned judgment.
10. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment dated 17.03.2025. Accordingly, the private complaint in C.C.15340 of 2022 is hereby restored to the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. The learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to take the compliant on its file and hear the final arguments, and render judgment in the case on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of this order being uploading in the High Court Website. It is
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025 made clear that since the case was already at the stage of arguments, no further adjournments shall be granted under any circumstances, and arguments must be advanced and judgment to be rendered within the stipulated time without any further delay.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 18-09-2026 Jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To
1. Learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )
CRL A No. 1161 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd CRL A No. 1161 of 2025
18-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 05:15:26 pm )