SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Perumal @ Pitchaiperumal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent



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 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.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.side)

for R1 Mr.R.Maheswaran for R2

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

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top