2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Martin @ Shiva – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police – Respondent
##PAGE1##
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2024
Martin @ Shiva ... Petitioner/Accused No. 3
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No. 354 of 2018) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Paulpandian ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the
records in CC No.472 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same as against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Jenifar Bibin
For Respondents : Mr. B.Thanga Aravindh (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Ms.M.Nandhini Priyadarshini (R2)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
##PAGE2##Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section
528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No.472 of 2020 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District,
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, due to previous
enmity, the accused persons 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.354 of 2018
was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner and
others for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC and
the same culminated in laying final report in Sessions CC No. 472 of 2020
before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
District, for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b) of IPC. Seeking quashment
of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are known to
each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint
Compromise Memo dated 22.01.2026 has been filed before this Court.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
##PAGE3##Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2024
4. The petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant are
present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.M.Sujitha, Woman
HC, Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The defacto
complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the
proceedings against the petitioner 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 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
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
##PAGE4##Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6815 of 2024
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