Madras High Court

Suriya Dinesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 April, 2025

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8066 of 2025


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  Dated : 30.04.2025

                                                          CORAM

                                     The Hon`ble Mr. Justice P.DHANABAL

                                          Crl. O.P(MD)No.8066 of 2025
                                                     and
                                      Crl.M.P(MD) No.6109 and 6111 of 2025

                     Suriya Dinesh                                                           ... Petitioner
                                                               vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        Palayamkottai Police Station
                        Tirunelveli District

                     2. Baskar                                                              ...Respondents

                     PRAYER: The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 528 of
                     B.N.S.S, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in PRC No.
                     121 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli
                     and quash the same.


                                     For petitioner               : Mr. S.Kasirajam

                                     For Respondents              : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
                                     No.1                           Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
                                     No.2                         : Mr.R.Rajeshkumar




                     1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:11 pm )
                                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8066 of 2025


                                                                ORDER

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the pending

proceedings in PRC No. 121 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2. The prosecution case is that due to previous enmity on

26.06.2019 at about 1.00 pm., when the defacto complainant was going in

a two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 76 AY 4784 all the accused pesons

wrongfully restrained him and absed in filthy language and also attacked

him deadly weapons and they also attempted to take money from the shirt

pocket of the defacto complainant, thereby, he lodged a complaint and

based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Cr. No.303 of 2019 for

the offences under Sections 341,294(b),3 87,307, 506(2) and 34 of IPC

and thereafter, the matter has been elaborately investigated and after

investigation, the final report has been filed as against the petitioner. Now

the case is posted for committal. At this stage, the petitioner has filed this

quash petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:11 pm )

between the parties and the petitioner 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 2nd 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

first respondent police would submit that the offences are grave in nature,

thereby he strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.

6. 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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:11 pm )

"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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:11 pm )

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 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:11 pm )

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. 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

evidence has been recorded and the case is pending at the stage of

committal. At this stage, the parties entered into compromise. Therefore,