Madras High Court
Thirumoorthy vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 24 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3862 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3862 of 2025
1. Thirumoorthy
2. Laxmanan @ Yoga Laxmanan
3. Prabhu @ Elangovan
4. Erulandi @ Erul
5. Jeyaprakash @ Kuruvi
6. Suresh
7. Poovalingam @ Boomi
... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Veeracholan Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
Crime No. 78/2019.
2. Thangapandian
... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3862 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS to call for the records of the Charge Sheet pending on the file
of the Special court for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Srivilliputtur in
Spl.S.C.No. 13/2020, dated 22.07.2020 in connection with Crime No.
78/2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Vijayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi(R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.B.Karthick (R2)
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records
pertaining to Spl.S.C.No.13/2020 on the file of the learned Special Court
for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Srivilliputtur for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 326, 201, 307, 506(ii) IPC and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, in Crime No.78 of 2019 and quash
the same.
2. According to the petitioners, based on the complaint given by
the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No. 78 of
2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 326,
201, 307, 506(ii) IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
2015.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsels
on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in Spl.S.C.No.
13/2020, 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.
4. Today, the defacto-complainant and the petitioners are present
and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto-
complainant represented that they entered into a compromise. A
compromise memo, dated 07.03.2025 signed by the parties and their
respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.
5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
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 his 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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
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 petition is allowed
and Spl.S.C.No.13/2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Srivilliputtur is quashed
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
24.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
PNM
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Special court for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases,
Srivilliputtur
2.The Inspector of Police,
Veeracholan Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
Crime No. 78/2019.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
P. DHANABAL, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
PNM
ORDER IN
24.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/05/2025 12:37:49 pm )
