BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22889 of 2025 CRL MP (MD) No.19836 of 2025 1. Muniswaran @ Muneeshwaran

2. Aravindh Kumar

3. Abimanyu ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1,2 3 Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai.

Crime No.362/2025. ... 1^st Respondent /Complainant

2. Sheik Dawoodh ...2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

3. Kumar ... 3^rd Respondent No.3/ Victim PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.362/2025 before the 1st Respondent police and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.J. Pon Eswara Moorthy For Respondents : Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

: Mr. N.Jayaram Sidhath (R2 & R3)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section

528 BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.362 of 2025 on the file of the

1^st respondent.

2. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is that the accused persons scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and kidnapped him. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.362 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 296(b), 135, 137(2) & 351(2) of BNS, 2023. Seeking quashment of the FIR, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners, the second and third respondents are said to be friends, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated Nil..11.2025 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners, the second respondent / defacto complainant and the third respondent / victim are present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.Ramalakshmi, WSI, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

5. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement. 6. The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat², wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 2 2017 (9) SCC 641 earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan³, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have am