BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI

1. Gandhi 2. Baskar

3. Kamaraj ... Petitioners Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.

(Crime No. 14/2014).

2. Dharmaraj ... Respondents PRAYER :-

To call for records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in CC No. 8/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/s.S.Ravi for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor : M/s.D.Venkatesh for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to property dispute, 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.14 of 2014 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC [Corresponding to the provision under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) of BNS]. Thereafter altered to the offence under Section 120(b), 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC [corresponding to the provisions under Section 61(2), 318(4), 322, 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and the same culminated in laying final report in C.C.No.8 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, for the offences under 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC [Corresponding to the provision under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2). 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 16.02.2026 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.T.Selladurai, District Crime Branch, Trichy 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 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 2 2017 (9) SCC 641 justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bl