Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J
Senkar Selvam – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli – Respondent
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10778 of 2025|Crl. OP(MD)No.937 of 2026|Crl. OP(MD)No.13529 of 2025|S.C.No.100 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C.Saravanakumar, Mr. R.Mohana Sundaram
For the Respondents: Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar, Mr. P.Suresh
Criminal proceedings can be quashed based on private compromise, affirming public interest must not be jeopardized.
Headnote:The judgment addresses the quashment of a charge sheet against the petitioners under IPC and SC/ST Act based on a compromise between parties, citing the well-established legal principles from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab relating to inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court reaffirms that disputes of a personal nature can warrant quashment of proceedings if they are private and voluntary. The Court ruled that since the parties reached an amicable resolution devoid of coercion, the criminal proceedings continuance would be deemed unnecessary and oppressive. The final ruling quashes the charge sheet in S.C.No.100 of 2024 against the petitioners, allowing the petitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing charge sheets based on familial compromise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. inherent jurisdiction principles for quashing based on compromise. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. continuation of proceedings not justified when compromise is reached. (Para 9) |
| 4. final ruling to quash the proceedings based on principles established. (Para 12) |
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 CrPC /
Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language by using caste related words and criminally intimidated them Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.11 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in Sessions S.C.No.100 of 2024 before the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petitions are filed.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the third respondent are family members, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 22.01.2026 has been filed before this Court.
4. The petitioners and the third respondent / defacto complainant were present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.Arumaikani, WSSI, All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli City. 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303 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 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 Narayan3, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that
2 2017 (9) SCC 641 3 2019 (5) SCC 688 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, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and
