High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 11.07.2025CORAM : THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHICrl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 20251.Vetri @ Vetrivel @ Vetriventhan2.Deivendiran ... PetitionersVs.1.The Inspector of Police,Eriyodu Police Station,Eriyodu, Dindigul District.Crime No.451 of 2015.2.R.Karthikeyan3.Iyyappan4. Murugan ... RespondentsPrayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records relating to S.C.No.48 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District and to Quash the same and pass such other or further orders.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathya Chidambaram1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025For R1 : Mr. A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate(Crl.side)For R2 to R4: M.DhinakarORDER The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.48 of 2022, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 IPC @ Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 IPC on the file of Sub Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. They have filed this application to quash the proceedings pending against them, on the ground that the issue has been amicably settled among themselves.2.The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is an Advocate. Due to previous enmity, the accused persons abused and attacked him and other two persons with iron rod and wooden-log.3.The case has been registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 IPC @ Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 IPC of which, the offence u/s.307 IPC is a heinous one. Generally, the Courts should 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025not exercise its inherent jurisdiction in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] entertained an appeal arising from the refusal to quash the proceedings registered for the offence u/s.307 IPC on the ground of compromise. While affirming that offences of a serious nature generally should not be quashed on the basis of compromise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also carved out exceptions where the facts do not disclose extreme brutality or grave injury and where settlement would better serve the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized a fact-specific approach in such matters. 4.This Court feels that the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra) is highly relevant:-“29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025the 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/delegate 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 later 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.”5.Therefore, this Court entertained this petition, ordered notice and also directed the investigation officer to ascertain as to whether the compromise arrived between the parties is a voluntary one, without any threat or coercion. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 20256.The petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court today and submitted that on the intervention of the elders, they have amicably resolved their issue. To that effect, they have also filed a joint compromise memo dated 15.04.2025.7.The investigation officer, after verification, has filed a report that the compromise arrived upon between the parties is genuine, without any threat or coercion. 8.This Court has verified the parties with their Aadhar Cards and also verified as to the present status. The parties have expressed their willingness to solve the issue. 9.This Court raised a query to the defacto complainant with regard to the nature of injury suffered by him. The defacto complainant is not inclined to disclose the same. It appears that the defacto complainant, being an Advocate, is not inclined to divulge the truth before this Court. However, he has stated that he is not inclined to prosecute the case. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 202510.Though the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence and to be treated as a crime against the Society, the Court should not rest its decision solely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC. The Court has to go by the nature of injury sustained, where the injury is inflicted, whether in any vital parts of the body, nature of weapons used, medical report etc.11.Going by the nature of injury sustained by the defacto complainant and the medical report, coupled with the compromise arrived between the parties, which would result in harmony between them and improve their future relationship, this Court, following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra), is inclined to quash the proceedings.12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.48 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo, dated 15.04.2025, shall form part and parcel of this 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025order. The petitioners and the defacto complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondent Police Station. 11.07.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoInternet:YesgnsTo1. The Inspector of Police,Eriyodu Police Station,Eriyodu, Dindigul District.2.. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025B.PUGALENDHI,JgnsCrl.O.P.(MD)No.7514 of 2025 11.07.20258/8