Madras High Court
Mohamed Malik vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2045 of 2025
1.Mohamed Malik
2.Mohamed Halith @ Halith
3.Ahamed Rizha ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pattukottai Sub Division,
Thanjavur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sethubawasathiram Police Station,
Thanjavur.
Crime No. 98/2014
3. Rengasamy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records in connection
with charge sheet in SC No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Honble Subordinate
Court, Pattukottai in Crime No. 98 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent
police and quash the same as illegal.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sheik Nasurdeen
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi (R1 & R2)
Government Advocate
Mr.B.Arun (R3)
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records
pertaining to SC No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai,
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 506(ii),
120(b) r/w 307 of IPC in Crime No.98 of 2014 and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the religious clash, the
accused attacked the defacto complainant with sickle, due to which, he sustain
grievous injuries all over his body. Hence, the respondent police lodged a
complaint and based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No.98
of 2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 506(ii), 120(b)
r/w 307 of IPC and thereafter, the matter has been elaborately investigated and
after investigation, the final report has been filed as against the petitioners. Now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
the case is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners have filed this quash
petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised between
the parties and the petitioners also tendered apology with the defacto
complainant and thereby, the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties and also filed a compromise memo.
4. The 3rd respondent / defacto complainant also appeared through his
counsel and filed a compromise memo and appeared before this Court in person
and he also expressed his willingness and stated that already matter has been
settled between the parties and therefore, he has no objection to allow this
petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police would submit that the offences are grave in nature, thereby he
strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
6. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
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".
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, as per the available records, the victim did not sustain any
injuries on the vital part of the body and the petitioners have no intention to
cause death to the victim. Therefore, the defacto complainant decided to forgive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
the petitioners, thereby, the parties entered into compromise. Moreover, 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.
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.
10. Recording the said compromise memo, this Criminal Original Petition
is allowed and SC No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Pattukottai is quashed as far as these petitioners alone are concerned.
17.04.2025
(2/2)
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
TO:-
1. The Subordinate Court, Pattukottai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pattukottai Sub Division,
Thanjavur District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Sethubawasathiram Police Station,
Thanjavur.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2045 of 2025
P.DHANABAL, J.
sm
Order made in
(2/2)
Dated:
17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:38:13 pm )
