Madras High Court

Kannan vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 February, 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 04.02.2025

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr. Justice P.DHANABAL

Crl. O.P(MD)No.20245 of 2024

Kannan ... Petitioner
vs.

1. The Inspector of Police
Veeravanallur Police Station
Tirunelveli District

2. Sasikumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in PRC No.
140 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi and
quash the same as illegal in respect of the petitioner concerned.

For petitioner : Mr. N. Perumal

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi

ORDER

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the pending

proceedings in PRC No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.04.2024 at about 11.00a m.,

when the defacto complainant along with his co-worker was walking near

Puthukudi bus stand at that time the accused stopped the second

respondent and asked money for buying liquor, when the second

respondent refused to give the money, the petitioner herein abused him in

filthy language and also took a sickle from the backside of his shirt and

tried to attack him but unfortunately he escaped from the hurt and raised a

alarm, immediately the petitioner rushed from the occurrence place and

thereby, he lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, FIR has been

registered in Cr. No.134 of 2024 for the offences under Sections

341,294(b), 307 and 506(2) 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

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

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:-

"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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

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, 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".

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20245 of 2024

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, 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