Madras High Court
Rajendran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2025
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL.O.P(MD) No.6246 of 2025
1. Rajendran
2. Velmurugan
3. Balakumar @ Balamurugan
4. Solairaj
5. Samuthirapandi
6. Ponraj
7. Theivakumar
8. Arumugam @ Arumuga Samy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
P.S.Koppampatti Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.227 of 2021.
2. Ayyanar ... Respondents
Page No. 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records
pertaining to the Charge Sheet in S.C.No.197 of 2022 on the file of the
Learned Sub Court cum Assistant Sessions Court, Kovilpatti and quash
the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr. M.Prabu
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Bala Krishnan
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners / Accused No.1 to 8
to call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.197 of 2022 on the file of the
Sub Court cum Assistant Sessions Court, Kovilpatti for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 307 of IPC in Crime No.
227 of 2021 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
3. The defacto-complainant and except the 2nd petitioner, all other
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 quash the pending proceedings in
S.C.No.197 of 2022. A compromise memo signed by the parties and their
respective counsel, is also filed before this Court.
4. 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.
5. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners have 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
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".
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, the petition
for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factors in such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
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.
7. In this case, as per the available records, the victim did not
sustain any injuries on the vital parts of the body and the petitoiners have
no intention to cause death to the victim. Therefore, the defacto
complainant decided to forgive the petitioners, 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, the defacto complainant has sustained only simple injuries and
the parties also entered into compromise, this Court is of the opinion that
it is appropriate to allow this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
9. Recording the said compromise memo, this criminal original
petition is allowed and S.C.No.197 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court
cum Assistant Sessions Court, Kovilpatti is quashed as against petitioners
no.1 and 3 to 8 alone.
23.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Mac
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.6246 of 2025
P.DHANABAL, J.
Mac
To
1. The Sub Court cum Assistant Sessions Court, Kovilpatti
2. The Inspector of Police,
P.S.Koppampatti Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:24 pm )
