BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI and CRL MP(MD). Nos.2755 and 2756 of 2024

1. Jeyaraman

2. Balasubramanian

3. Saravanan ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Sivagangai District.

Crime No.36 of 2015.

2. Chinnakannu ... Respondents PRAYER :-

To call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in S.C no. 225 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sub Court, Devakottai and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr. Anushiya K, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in S.C.No. 225 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sub Court, Devakottai and quash the same as illegal.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him, thereby causing injuries. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.36 of 2015 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 120(B), 341, 506(ii), 307 of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in S.C.No.225 of 2023 before the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sub Court, Devakottai, as against the petitioners 1 and 2, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 341, 506(ii) of IPC and as against the 3rd petitioner for the offences under Sections 120(B) of IPC. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are residing in the same locality, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 25.09.2024 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.N.Radhakrishnan, SI, Kallal 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

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 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.

2 2017 (9) SCC 641

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan³, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding