##PAGE1##

CRL OP No. 7759 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL OP No. 7759 of 2026

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.

__________

Page1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/05/2026 01:34:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 7759 of 2026

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

__________

Page2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/05/2026 01:34:13 pm )

CRL OP No. 7759 of 2026

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