SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
R.Sanjay – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, VK Puram, Police Station, Tirunelveli District. – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD). No.18752 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Gokul
For the Respondents:Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Ms.D.Meenalochini

A court may quash charges when parties reach a compromise and express willingness to withdraw proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks to quash the final report in C.C.No.30 of 2025 per Sections 296(b), 351(3), 131 of BNS, 2023. Allegations of an attack due to prior enmity were made, with parties confirming in court that they have reached a compromise. This court quashed the final report based on the compromise and ordered a cost payment. The judgment concluded with the quashing of the final report and allowed the petition.

Table of Content
1. allegation relates to an attack due to prior enmity. (Para 2)
2. parties have reached a compromise and wish to withdraw proceedings. (Para 3 , 4)
3. the court quashed the final report based on the compromise. (Para 5)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned final report in C.C.No.30 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3) and 131 of BNS, 2023.

2. The gist of the allegation is that on account of prior enmity, the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant in a TASMAC shop with hands and stones and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant / the second respondent would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are closely related to each other and that the parties have arrived at a compromise and have signed a memo of compromise and both the parties have agreed that the impugned F.I.R may be quashed.

4. The parties have also filed a joint compromise memo dated 28th October 2025. The petitioner and the second respondent/ defacto complainant are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.A.Thivuvarangam, VK Pudur Police Station. The defacto complainant would submit that he is willing to withdraw the proceedings even as against A1 and A2, who are not before this Court. Both the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

5. Considering the nature of offence and the relationship between the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned final report can be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned final report in C.C.No.30 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo, dated 28.10.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the “District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam” (Account No.10767823177, IFSC Code: SBIN0000898, MICR Code: 625002601) and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top