High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 21.03.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALCrl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025Manickaraja ... Petitioner Vs.1.State of TamilnaduRep. by The Inspector of Police,Kovilpatti West Police Station,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.868 of 2011).2.Sampathkumar ...RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.C.No.222 of 2014 in Crime No.868 of 2011 on the file of learned Sub Court, Kovilpatti and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Balakrishnan1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025 O R D E RThis petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.C.No.222 of 2014 in Crime No.868 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(2) of IPC on the file of learned Sub Court, Kovilpatti and quash the same.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsels on both sides represented that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.3. The defacto-complainant and the accused are present and this Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto-complainant represented that they entered into a compromise and he has no objection to allow this petition. A compromise memo signed by the parties and their respective counsels is also filed before this Court.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 20254. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police has strongly opposed on the ground that the petitioner has so many previous cases and produced the list of pending cases against the petitioner.5. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in respect of the compounding offences in para No.29.1. to 29.7. as follows:-"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025be exercised sparingly and with caution.29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for qushing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offence committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall int he category of heinous and serious offences and therefore 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc., Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings / investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances / material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial Court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a grund to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial Court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".6. On a careful perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factors in such cases would be to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power, the High Court has to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 20257. In this case, as per the available records, the victim did not sustain any injuries and the petitioner had no intention to cause death to the victim. Therefore, the defacto complainant decided to forgive the petitioner, thereby, the parties entered into compromise. Moreover in this case, no evidence has been recorded and the case is pending at the stage of trial. At this stage, the parties entered into compromise. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to allow the petition by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment.8. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and the above said judgment and this Court also perused the list of pending cases and most of the case are already disposed of. The petitioner has also stated that all the cases were foisted against him and that is why, in most of the cases, he was acquitted. Considering the nature of offences and no vital parts of the body was affected by the defacto complainant, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to allow this petition.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.222 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025Ordinate Court, Kovilpatti is quashed. 21.03.2025Internet:YesIndex :Yes/NoNCC:Yes/NoMacTo1.The Inspector of Police,Kovilpatti West Police Station,Thoothukudi District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.3. The Sub Court,Kovilpatti 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025 P. DHANABAL, J.Mac Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 202521.03.20259/9