BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Thirupathy ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.75 of 2022) ... 1^st respondent /

Complainant

2.Mariappan ... 2^nd respondent / de-facto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the impugned Charge Sheet in C.C.No.282 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 : Mr.R.Kiruba

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.282 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de-facto complainant is working as a Transport Officer in the Virudhunagar Fire and Rescue Service Station. While the second respondent was on medical leave, a false salary certificate was issued to one Mohammed Umar Yashiq, who was the driver at the said station, by impersonating the signature and stamp of the de-facto complainant in the said certificate, for the purpose of receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from Shri Ram Chit Funds. This resulted in the filing of a complaint in Crime No.75 of 2022 before the first respondent police. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter was taken on file as C.C. No.282 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

nd

3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2 respondent are residing in the same locality and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 25.11.2025 has been filed before this Court.

nd

4. The petitioner and the 2 respondent/de-facto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.K.Muruganantham, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District. The de-facto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner. 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 Cr.P.C 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

1 2012 10 SCC 303 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 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 t