BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/01/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

1.Devasagayam 2.Pothumponnu

3.Anthoniyar

4.Dinesh Augustin Raj @ Agustin Dinesh

5.Henry Antony Raj @ Kennady

6.Christopher

7.Pavithra Mary ... Petitioners Vs

1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District.

Crime No.596 of 2025

2.Suvaikin Aruldas ... Respondents PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.596 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police dated

28.10.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (crl.side)

For R2 : Mr.M.Prabu

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.596 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 on the file of the respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a pathway dispute between the first petitioner, who is the paternal uncle of the defacto complainant, and the defacto complainant. Owing to the said dispute, when the de facto complainant accessed the road for the purpose of letting out cattle, the petitioners picked a quarrel with him by using filthy language, assaulted him and his wife with an iron rod, and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and FIR in Crime No.596 of 2025 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

3.Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are relatives and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 08.01.2026 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.Murugesan, SSI, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Tiruchy District. The defacto 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 Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303, 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 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