Madras High Court
Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3515 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :25.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3515 of 2025
1. Murugan
2. Sivaperumal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Radhapuram Police Station,
In Crime No. 32/2013,
Tirunelveli District.
2. Manikandan ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the
Charge Sheet in S.C.No. 745/2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Valliyur and quash the same against the petitioner's concern.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Susikumar
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr. R.Maheswaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
Page no.1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3515 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners/Accused no.1 and 2 to
call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in S.C.No. 745 of 2018 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyur and quash the same against the
petitioners.
2. The prosecution case is that due to previous enmity between the
petitioners and the defacto complainant, on 22.03.2013, the petitioners have
assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby, caused injuries. Hence, the
second respondent lodged a complaint and based on the said complaint, FIR
has been registered in Crime No.32 of 2013 for the offences under Sections
294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thereafter, the
matter has been elaborately investigated and after investigation, the final
report has been filed as against the petitioners. Now the case is pending for
trial. At this stage, the petitioners have filed this quash petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised
between the parties and the petitioners 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
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 petitioners
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis criminal proceedings:
( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
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 oppression and prejudice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records, the victim did not sustain any
Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
injuries and the petitioners had no intention to cause death to the victim.
Therefore, the defacto complainant decided to forgive the petitioners,
thereby, the parties entered into compromise. Moreover in this case, no
evidence has been recorded and the case is pending at the stage of trial. 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.
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and the above said
judgment, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to allow this
petition.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the proceedings in S.C.No.745 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sub
Ordinate Judge, Valliyur is quashed as against these petitioners. The memo
of compromise, dated 17.02.2025 filed by the parties, shall form part of this
order.
25.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
mac
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
P. DHANABAL, J.,
mac
To
1. The Sub Ordinate Judge, Valliyur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Radhapuram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 05:56:04 pm )
