Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Susila – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station Madurai District. – Respondent
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.15326, 15328 of 2025 & 1228 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Albert James, Mr.P.Balamurugan
Criminal proceedings can be quashed if a valid civil compromise exists that addresses the underlying issues.
Headnote:This judgment analyses the validity of a criminal charge against the petitioners under multiple IPC sections in light of a civil compromise. The Court found that a valid compromise existed in the civil matter whereby the petitioners received monetary compensation and vacated the premises, negating the criminal charges. The issues of whether the continuation of criminal proceedings were justified amidst the civil settlement were framed, leading the Court to conclude that such proceedings would serve no purpose. Resultantly, the charges against the petitioners were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of compromise between parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's view on proceeding with the criminal case. (Para 8) |
| 3. resulting decision to quash the charges. (Para 10) |
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 270 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai, wherein they are charged with offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 468, 471, 506(i), and 34 of the IPC.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, O.S. No.403 of
2018 was disposed of on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties on 29.03.2022. As per the said compromise, the petitioners/accused received a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant and agreed that they would not claim any right over the property. The petitioners, who were in occupation of the building, also vacated the premises and handed over possession to the de-facto complainant/landlord. These facts are not in dispute.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the documents alleged to have been forged by the petitioners herein formed part of the records before the Civil Court, where a compromise had been reached between the parties. He further submitted that criminal proceedings would only be harassment of the petitioners and hence he seeks to quash the said proceedings.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioners herein had created certain documents to establish that they were conducting business in the disputed premises, and by relying on those forged documents, the petitioners sought to protect their possession by filing O.S. No. 403 of 2018. Therefore, he objected to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners were tenants in the building of the second respondent, and they are alleged to have created certain documents to establish their possession in the civil proceedings pending in O.S. No.403 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
7. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the petitioners herein have produced records relating to the running of a rice grinding business in the disputed property and have also obtained certificates from the Small Scale Industries. Those certificates were placed before the competent Civil Court while seeking a decree of permanent injunction to protect the possession of the petitioners as tenants. Admitting the possession of the petitioners herein, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant entered into a compromise and paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to them. After receiving the said amount, the petitioners handed over possession of the property to the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant.
8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in directing the petitioners to stand trial when the said issue has already been compromised between the parties before the Civil Court. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the charge sheet in C.C.No.270 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
10. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
