BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Sathiyanadhan, ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.99/2025).

2. Gopinath,, S/o.Ramraj, ... Respondents PRAYER :- To call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in CC No.638/2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai and Quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. G. Gopinath, For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.M.Gurudas

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C No.

638/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that while consuming liquor, a physical and verbal altercation arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the manner in which the liquor was being poured. In a fit of anger, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a beer bottle and caused injuries to him. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.99 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in C.C No.638/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai. for the same offence. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner, the second respondent and the victim are known with one another, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 26.01.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant and the victim are present before this Court in person and are identified by M/s.Gowri, Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he do 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 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, 2 2017 (9) SCC 641 3 2019 (5) SCC 688 holding that 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 compromi