BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

1.Amsavalli

2.Selvam ... Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.256/2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

2.Boomathi ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 256 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.M.Prabu

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 256 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police Station, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. There was a civil dispute pending between the petitioners'

family and the defacto complainant’s family. On the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioners are stated to have picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused him in filthy language, and further assaulted and criminally intimidated him by threatening him with dire consequences. Consequently, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 256 of 2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are relatives, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.12.2025 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.M.Rengasamy, SI, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, Trichy District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that she 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 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings

1 2012 10 SCC 303 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 Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, 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 Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, 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, th