SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top