BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

1.Samiyaiya

2.Ramanathan

3.Rajkumar

4.Mani Alias Shanmugamani ... Petitioners vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District. (Cr.No.255 of 2021)

2.Rani ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, to quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.38 of 2023 pending on the file of the Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Court, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

For Petitioners :Ms.V.Nambi Nachiyar For R1 :Mr.Albert James Government Advocate (crl.side)

For R2 :Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja *****

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Court, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.38 of 2023, wherein, the petitioners are alleged to have been committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

2.Pending trial, the accused and the de-facto complainant have entered into compromise, wherein, the de-facto complainant has agreed for quashing of the charge sheet. The de-facto complaint was present in person before this Court on 11.03.2026 and she had acknowledged the fact that she had agreed for quashing of the charge sheet as against the petitioners.

3.A perusal of the records reveals that the counter case filed by the accused person as against the de-facto complainant has already been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4064 of 2026, dated

11.03.2026 in view of the compromise between the parties.

4.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the first respondent raised an objection that since the petitioners are charged with offences under Section 307 IPC, compromise cannot be recorded. Therefore, this Court directed production of 161(3) statement of the Doctor concerned as well as the wound certificate issued by the Doctor, to verify whether the ingredients of Section 307 would get attracted. 5.A perusal of 161(3) of the Doctor concerned as well as the wound certificate reveals that four persons got injured on the date of occurrence out of them, one Kalimuthu had left the hospital on the same day and other victim namely, Suriya @ Suriyaprakash had sustained only simple injury and he was also discharged immediately. As far as the other victim, namely, Selvam and Banumathi are concerned, they have sustained minor injuries in the head as well as in the hands, which would attract the ingredients of Section 326 IPC alone.

6.In such circumstances, though the petitioners have been charged with Section 307 IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that they could be charged only for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision rendered in 2025 INSC 182 between Naushey Ali and others vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another, was pleased to record a compromise on the ground that the offence under Section 307 is not attracted, but the ingredients of 326 of IPC alone are made out.

7.Following aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that offence under Section 326 is made out and the the parties can be permitted to enter into a compromise for quashing of the charge sheet.

8.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the charge sheet in S.C.No.38 of 2023 pending on the file of the Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Court, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, stands quashed. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Index :Yes / No 16.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To

1.The Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

cmr

16.03.2026