Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Guduvanchery Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 | Crime No.42 of 2024 | P.R.C. No.106 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar
For the Respondents:Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) assisted by Ms.T.Harshana
Criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences may be quashed if parties reach a genuine compromise and continuance would serve no useful purpose.
Headnote:The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.42 of 2024 pending as P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners waylaid and threatened witnesses to extract loads of sand, leading to charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 387, 307, and 506(2) IPC. The court found that the parties had entered into a compromise and were willing to maintain harmonious relations. The primary issue was whether criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences could be quashed on the basis of a private compromise. The court relied on binding precedents to reason that continuance of prosecution would serve no useful purpose when the dispute was essentially between private parties and had been amicably resolved, observing that judicial discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with caution. The proceedings in P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 stand quashed against the petitioners. The petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case facts relating to allegations and procedural history of charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compromise reached by parties and court’s satisfaction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. quashing of proceedings on compromise in crime cases (Para 5 , 6) |
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, to call for the records relating to the case in P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet, Chengalpet District and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
assisted by Ms.T.Harshana
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet, Chengalpet District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the husband of the Perumathur Village Panchayat President, the 2nd petitioner is his brother-in-law, the 3rd petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner, and the 4th and 5th petitioners are relatives of petitioners 1 to 3. On 24.01.2024, the petitioners allegedly waylaid L.W.1 to L.W.5 and demanded 25 loads of sand. When they refused, L.W.1 to L.W.5 were threatened with dire consequences and compelled to comply with the demand. The 2nd petitioner attempted to assault L.W.1 with an iron rod. Based on this incident, a case in Crime No.42 of 2024 was registered on 09.01.2024 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 387, 307, and 506(2) IPC. After investigation, the 1st respondent police filed a final report, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons for charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii), and 149 IPC, and the case is still at the stage of trial. In the meantime, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
4. A compromise deed dated 13.04.2026 has been filed by the 2nd respondent along with the petitioners. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court. In the compromise deed, it is stated that the incident occurred due to frustration, and the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have decided to compromise and maintain harmonious relations. They are not inclined to proceed with the prosecution further. This Court, after enquiring both parties, is satisfied that they have reached an amicable settlement.
5.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @
Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.42 of 2024, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
6.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in P.R.C. No.106 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet is quashed against the petitioners.
