Madras High Court
Avinash @ Abinash vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4976 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4976 of 2025
Avinash @ Abinash ..Petitioner
.vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2. P.Sikkandhar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records
relating to the impugned FIR dated 15.07.2017 and alteration report
dated 19.07.2017 in Crime No.431 of 2017 on the file of the first
respondent police and quash them as illegal.
For petitioner :Mr.K.Saravanan
For R1 : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl side)
For R2 & R3 : Mr.Manindernath
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4976 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
impugned FIR in Crime No.431 of 2017 registered on the file of the first
respondent police for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC @
279 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsels appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second
respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and
on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.431 of 2017, for
the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC @ 279 and 304(A) of
IPC against the petitioner.
3. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the
parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
4. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 17.03.2025, has been filed
before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner and the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the
second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they
were identified by the respondent police, as well as by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the
parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable
settlement between themselves.
5. In the instant case, allegations are in respect of gross negligence
in construction of building. Even as per the First Information Report due
to rash and negligent driving the occurrence had happened. There is no
direct nexus to the petitioner with this incident. Where the parties have
compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the
complaint for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
6. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of
Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
7. In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said
Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served
in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.431 of 2017, pending before the
first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.431 of 2017 on the file of the
first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 17.03.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order.
24.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
09.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:30 pm )
