Madras High Court
Pasumpon vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8452 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8452 of 2024
Pasumpon ..Petitioner
.vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station
Sivagangai District
2.Ezhilarasi ...Respondents
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 C.C.No.674 of 20222 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai District and quash the same
as illegal.
For petitioner :Mr.R.Babu Jegnath
For R1 : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl side)
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.karthikeyan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8452 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge
sheet in C.C.No.674 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Sivagangai District for the offences under Sections 279, 337,
304(A) and 338 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.144 of 2021, for
the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) and 338 of IPCagainst the
petitioner and thereafter they conducted investigation and filed final
report.
3. The case is still under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
among themselves.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
4. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 13.06.2024, has been filed
before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner and the second
respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner 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
of rash and negligent driving. Even as per the charge sheet due to rash
and negligent driving the occurrence had happened. There is no directe
nexus to the petitoiner 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, 337, 304(A) and 338 of
IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Chandan Singh Vs The
State and another of High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C.No.1105 of 2016,
wherein, the High Court of Delhi, after relying the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, held in
paragraphs No.5 to 8, as follows:
“The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex
Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the
Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be
exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to
secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the
quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter
has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has
been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be
an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal
proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this
Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to
invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent
the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the
absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of
justice such as, where the process is abused or misused;
where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the
process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid
the causing of harassment to any person by using the
provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal
process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent
power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express
provisions of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors.
MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has
observed that powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. must be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only
when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be
manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of
the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash
the proceedings.”
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 and the power
is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
8. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
9. Considering the nature of the offences, the relationship between
the parties and they have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate
to allow this petition.
10. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed
and the proceedings in C.C.No.674 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai District is quashed. The
compromise memo dated 13.06.2024 filed by the parties shall form part
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: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai District
2. The Inspector of Police
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station
Sivagangai District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
