IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR S. Nedunchezhiyan ..Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep., by The Inspector of Police Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 226/2025)

2. Ravi ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crime No. 226 of 2025 pending on the file of 1^st respondent police and quash the FIR pending against the petitioner.

For Petitioner: Mr. D. Thirumoorthy For Respondents: Mr. R. Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr. S. Silambuselvan for R2

O R D E R

The petitioner / Accused in Crime No.226 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 109(1) of BNS Act, 2023 [294, 324 and 307 of IPC] on the file of the 1^st respondent Police has filed this Criminal Original Petition.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had a wordy quarrel with the de facto complainant, abused him in filthy language and also slapped him. Following the wordy quarrel, while the de-facto complainant was riding his bicycle, the petitioner intentionally dashed his car against him, causing grievous injuries. The petitioner then threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Upon seeing the public gather to rescue the victim, the petitioner abandoned his vehicle and fled the scene. On the complaint of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.226 of 2025 for offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 109(1) of BNS Act, 2023 [294, 324 and 307 of IPC] against the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. 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.

5. Today the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent appeared before this Court and their identities were confirmed by Mr. J. Sureshbabu, SSI attached to the 1^st 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 petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have filed separate affidavits and a settlement agreement before this Court and have also filed a Joint Compromise Memo, which is extracted hereunder:

“1. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been arrayed as Sole Accused in Crime No.226/2025 on the file of the 1^st Respondent Police registered for the alleged offences under Section 296(b), 118(1) and 109(1) of BNS Act, 2023 [294, 324 and

307 of IPC] and the 2^nd Respondent is Defacto complainant. 2. It is submitted that the Petitioner has filed the above petition praying to call for the records in Crime No.226/2025 pending on the file of 1^st Respondent Police, and quash the FIR pending against the Petitioner and the Petitioner crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to read the Grounds of Criminal Original Petition filed by him as part and parcel of this joint compromise memo for better appreciation of the facts in issue.

3. It is submitted that the Petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent are known to each other and are residing in the same locality and that as the matter had got settled amicably between the parties, the Defacto Complainant is withdrawing the complaint lodged by him out of frustration at the time of the incident.

4. It is submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and thereby settled the issue amicably among themselves out of freewill and without any coercion.

5. It is submitted that the alleged offence is occurred between two private parties and it also does not have any impact on the Society. Therefore, based upon the compromise arrived between the parties, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed at the hands of this Hon’ble Court.

6. It is submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings will cause great mental agony