Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.904 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.904 of 2025
Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Inspector of Police,
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.658 of 2020)
2.George
3.Sam Joharson
4.Gokulaselvam ... Respondents
(R3 & R4 are impleaded vide order dated
07.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4602 of 2025)
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.658 of 2020, dated
18.12.2020 for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 307,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.904 of 2025
324, 341, 342 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959
on the file of the first respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Dinesh
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.Sheenivasan
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.658 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020 for the alleged offences under
Section 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324, 341, 342 and 506(2) of IPC and
Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The prosecution is that the de facto complainant is that due to
previous enmity between the accused persons and the defacto
complainant, on 18.12.2020, the petitioner, along with other accused,
has assaulted the defacto complainant and the respondents 3 and 4 and
thereby, caused injuries. Hence, the second respondent lodged a
complaint and based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
No.658 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020 for the alleged offences under Section
147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324, 341, 342 and 506(2) of IPC and Section
25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. At the stage of investigation, the petitioner
has filed this quash petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been
compromised between the parties and the petitioner also tendered
apology with the defacto complainant and thereby, the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of the well-
wishers in order to ensure peace and harmony in the locality and also
filed a compromise memo.
4. The 2nd respondent / defacto complainant and
victims/respondents 3 and 4 also appeared through their counsel and
filed a compromise memo. The second respondent appeared before this
Court in person and the respondents 3 and 4 appeared through Video
Conferencing mode. They also expressed their willingness and stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
already matter has been settled between the parties and therefore, they
have no objection to allow this petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent police would submit that the offences are grave in
nature, thereby he strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.
6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
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
be 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
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
are 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
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 cases 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".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
7. 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.
8. In this case, there are no serious allegations as against this
petitioner. Therefore, the defacto complainant and victims decided to
forgive the petitioner, thereby, 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.
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and the above said
judgment, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to allow this
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed
and the Crime No.658 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020 on the file of the first
respondent, is quashed, as against this petitioner.
07.04.2025
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
apd
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
apd
07.04.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 06:23:05 pm )
