Madras High Court
Nishanth @ Santiago Merbin Nishanth vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 April, 2025
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL.O.P(MD) No.7766 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5811 of 2025
Nishanth @ Santiago Merbin Nishanth ... Petitioner
.vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.216 of 2012)
2. Lawrance @ Maria Lawrance ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records
in relating to impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.57 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram and to quash the same.
For petitioners : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik
For R1 : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Vasanth
Page No. 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner / Accused No.2 to call
for the records pertaining to P.R.C.No.57 of 2020 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram for the offences under Sections
147, 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC read with 109 of IPC, in Crime
No.216 of 2012 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.
3. The defacto-complainant and the 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 P.R.C.No.57 of 2020. A compromise
memo, dated 07.04.2025 signed by the parties and their respective
counsel, is also filed before this Court.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
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 petitioner
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
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
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, due to sudden provocation, the occurrence had
happened. As per the available records, the victim did not sustain any
injuries and the petitoiner has no intention to cause death to the victim.
Therefore, the defacto complainant decided to forgive the petitioner,
thereby, the parties entered into compromise. Moreover in this case, no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
evidence has been recorded and the case is pending at the stage of
committal. 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.
9. Recording the said compromise memo dated 07.04.2025, this
criminal original petition is allowed and P.R.C.No.57 of 2020 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram is quashed as against the
petitioner alone. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition
is closed.
28.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Mac
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
CRL.OP(MD) NO.7766 of 2025
P.DHANABAL, J.
Mac
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Radhapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Koodankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and
CRL.M.P.(MD).No. 5811 of 2025
28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 04:55:25 pm )
