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

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.18981 of 2025

1.Rajmohan

2.Rajesh

3.Santhosh ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy.

(Crime No.260 of 2023) ... 1^st respondent /

Complainant

2.Rajaram ... 2^nd respondent / de-facto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.260 of 2023 on the file of the

1^st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Sivachandran For R1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 : Mr.R.Paranjothi

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.260 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent police, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to a family dispute, on

28.05.2023, at about 9.30 p.m., when the de-facto complainant’s son was having food with his friends at the de-facto complainant’s parents’ house, the second petitioner abused and assaulted the de-facto complainant’s son. When the same was questioned by the de-facto complainant, the petitioners abused the de-facto complainant, assaulted him, and also threatened them with dire consequences. Consequently, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners in Crime No.260 of 2023 before the first respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(2) of the IPC.

nd

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2 respondent are related to each other and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 21.11.2025 has been filed before this Court.

nd

4. The petitioners and the 2 respondent/de-facto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy. The de-facto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR against the petitioners. 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 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.

1 2012 10 SCC 303

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 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 amicably settled the dispute. The Court