Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.03.2026
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP.(MD)No.3149 of 2026
1.Perumal @ Pitchaiperumal
2.Vanumamalai @ Van ...Petitioners Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.176/2024. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ramar @ Ramakrishnan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.side)for R1
Mr.R.Maheswaran for R2
1.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J .
Indu
Crl.OP.(MD)No.3149 of 2026
23.03.2026
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.56/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor and quash the same against the petitioners concern.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in P.R.C.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein they are charged with offences under Sections 294(b), 448, 324, 307, 342, 427, 506(ii) and 326 IPC.
2. Pending trial, the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein the defacto complainant had agreed for quashing of the charge sheet.
3. The defacto complainant is present in person before this Court and he acknowledged the fact that he had agreed for quashing of the charge sheet.
4. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there was an altercation between the accused persons and the defacto complainant and the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant on his left thigh and knee. The Doctor, who had treated the defacto complainant, in his 161 statement, has stated that the defacto complainant had suffered three minor injuries and one grievous injury. The laceration wounds on the thigh portion would clearly reveal that only Section 326 IPC would get attracted and not Section 307 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment in Naushey Ali and others Vs. State of U.P and another reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, while quashing the charge sheet arising out of Section 307 IPC, was pleased to hold that only Section 326 IPC is attracted and thereafter proceeded to record the procedure for quashing of the charge sheet on the basis of compromise.
5. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, is hereby quashed.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
23.03.2026
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Indu To
