Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
D. Kuppan – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police V5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
CRL MP No. 7803 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. T.K.S. Gandhi
For the Respondents: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. T.Harshana for R1, Mr. S. Vivekananthan for R2
Quashing of FIR is permissible by High Court even in non-compoundable offences when genuine compromise is reached among parties at investigation stage.
Headnote:The judgment examines the concept of quashing FIRs at the investigation stage when parties have reached an amicable settlement in non-compoundable offences. Facts of the case indicate that the petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Findings of Court establish that a genuine compromise has been reached between the parties and their identities were confirmed by a police officer. The court frames the issue as whether the FIR should be quashed considering the parties' compromise and non-recovery of evidence. Ratio Decidendi establishes that the Court, in exercise of inherent powers, can quash non-compoundable FIRs when a genuine compromise has been reached among the parties after exercising due caution as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Result: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of fir for alleged offences under bns (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. compromise reached between parties (Para 3) |
| 3. court verification of compromise (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. quashing permissible despite non-compoundable offences (Para 7) |
| 5. petition is allowed and fir is quashed (Para 8) |
O R D E R
The petitioners /accused in Crime No.246 of 2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent Police has filed this Criminal Original Petition.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to a previous enmity, a wordy quarrel arose between the accused persons and the defacto complainant on 05.04.2026, during which the accused allegedly attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the 1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner did not involve in any activities as alleged by the 2nd respondent and they did not use filthy language or physical violence against the 2nd respondent. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioners. Both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, he prays for quashing.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that on 05.04.2026, due to previous enmity, the petitioners picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant using filthy language. Thereafter, the petitioners allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.246 of 2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners. Now the investigation is in progress. In the meantime, both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues.
5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
6. Today the petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Ms.K.Devi, Woman Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent have filed separate affidavit before this Court and also filed the Joint Compromise Memo.
7. 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 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 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
8. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No. 246 of 2026, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioners. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
