Madras High Court
Nallathambi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2679 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL.OP.(MD).No.2679 of 2025
Nallathambi .. Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Musiri Sub Division,
Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Musiri Police Station,
Trichy District,
(Crime No.29 of 2025) ..1st and 2nd Respondents/Complainant
3.Kesavan .. 3rd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 530 of BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report
in Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the second respondent police and
quash the same.
For petitioner : Ms.Ramakrishnan.S
For RRR1 &2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R3 : Mr.S.Paul Murugesh
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2679 of 2025
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No. Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the
second respondent police.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been
compromised between the parties and also they filed a Joint Compromise
Memo dated 10.02.2025.
3. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the
parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute
amicably among themselves.
4. A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 10.02.2025, 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.
5. This Court also enquired, and the second respondent has no
objection to quash the case since, they arrived at a compromise, as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the joint compromise memo, the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties.
6. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and now
the parties had compromised. When the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has the power to quash the complaint for the
offences under Sections 329 (3), 296 (b), 115(2), 351 (2) of BNS r/w
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Act, 1989).
7. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of
Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
8. In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping
the proceedings in Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the second
respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not
compoundable in nature.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise
memo dated 10.02.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order.
13.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
nst
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Musiri Sub Division,
Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Musiri Police Station,
Trichy District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.
nst
Dated: 13.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
