The court recognizes that compromise in private disputes may justify quashing criminal charges, including serious offences.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in P.R.C.No.35 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The allegation in the final report is that the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant had prior enmity, as the second respondent/defacto complainant suspected the petitioner of having an illicit relationship with his wife; that, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner entered the second respondent/defacto complainant's house in his absence; that, when the second respondent/defacto complainant entered the house, the petitioner attacked him with a screwdriver on the chest, shoulder, left side of the cheek, and hip, with the intention to kill him, and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant is private in nature; that the petitioner never intended to cause the death of the second respondent/defacto complainant, though the injuries are grievous in nature; that, considering the nature of the injuries and the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner, the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be made out; and that the parties have now arrived at a compromise. He has also filed a Joint Compromise Memo before this Court.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant belong to the same village and have now entered into a compromise, deciding to give a quietus to the entire dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo. A scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows:

5. The petitioner, namely, Anbarasan [Aadhaar No.2603 1470 8033] and the second respondent/defacto complainant, namely, Hariharasudhan [Aadhaar No.4880 8418 9500] appeared on 23.09.2025 before this Court in person. They were identified by Mr.Thangappa, SSI (956), Pattukottai Police Station, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District on that day. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

6. It is seen from the final report and the discharge summary that the second respondent/defacto complainant had sustained injuries on the shoulder and on the left ribs, and that the Doctor had certified the injuries as grievous. From the manner in which the occurrence took place, the nature of the injuries, and the weapon used, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had any intention to cause the death of the second respondent/defacto complainant.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nushey Ali and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 , had laid down guidelines for quashing criminal cases on the basis of compromise, including those registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. This Court is of the view that if those guidelines are applied, the impugned prosecution can be quashed. Further, the dispute is private in nature and would not have any impact on society.