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

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Arul Jesu ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Kallal, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.212 of 2025) ... 1^st respondent /

Complainant

2.James ... 2^nd respondent / de-facto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.212 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent police dated 24.08.2025 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthik For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.212 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent police, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. On 15.08.2025, due to previous enmity between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner on account of a dispute relating to the commemoration of ancestors in graveyard, the petitioner attacked the de-facto complainant, his son, and his wife with his hands and also abused them using filthy language. Consequently, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner in Crime No.212 of 2025 before the 1^st respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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 26.11.2025 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.S.P.Jeyashankar, Sub Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Kallal, Sivagangai District. The de- facto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR 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 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

1 2012 10 SCC 303 2 2017 9 SCC 641 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 further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Co