Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 February, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3048 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3048 of 2025
1.Saravanan
2.Dhinakaran
3.Ramanathan
4.Nagalingam
5.Govindarasu
6.Aravarasan
7.Govindan
8.Murugesan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkovil Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.44 of 2012.
2.Nagalingam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3048 of 2025
3.Saraswathi
4.Karuppaiah
5.Palani
6.Navaneethan ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.88 of 2024 on the file of the
Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as
against the petitioner alone.
For Petitioners : Mr.CN.Tamizharasan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R-2 : Mr.M.Murugesan
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records
pertaining to the S.C.No.88 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila
Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. According to the petitioners, the defacto complainant is close
relative. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto
complainant, the police has registered FIR in Crime No.44 of 2012. After
investigation filed Final Report and the Trial Court has taken cognizance
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294(b) and 307 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
of Harassment of Women Act.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel
on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in S.C.No.88
of 2024, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and
they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this
Court.
4. Today, the defacto-complainant and all the accused are present
and the defacto-complainant represented that they entered into a
compromise as the petitioners are close relative. A compromise memo,
dated 21.02.2025 signed by the parties, is also filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has relied upon a judgement of the 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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".
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. In this case,
there are no serious injuries on the vital parts of the body of the injured.
8. 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.
9. Recording the said compromise, this petition is allowed and
S.C.No.88 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ramanathapuram is quashed. The compromise memo, dated 21.02.2025
filed by the parties shall form part of this order.
21.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkovil Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.
BTR
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
