Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Madhan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2025 Latest Caselaw 4111 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4111 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Madhan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2025

                                                                                      Crl.O.P(MD)No.4514 of 2025




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 18.03.2025

                                                        CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

                                          Crl.O.P(MD)No.4514 of 2025


                     Madhan                                                              ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
                     Rep by the Inspector of Police,
                     Gangaikondan Police Station,
                     Tirunelveli District.
                     Crime No. 12/2025.

                     2. Sankarapandi                                                  ... Respondents

                     Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
                     to call for the records in proceeding in Crime No. 12 of 2025 dated
                     09.01.2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same
                     as illegal.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )
                     1/10
                                                                                              Crl.O.P(MD)No.4514 of 2025




                                               For Petitioners            : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin,

                                               For R-1                    : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
                                                                           Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                               For R-2                    : Mr.Pragadeeswaran


                                                                ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records

pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2025 dated

09.01.2025 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences

under Sections 296(b), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS and quash the same.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

on both sides represented that the matter has been amicably settled

between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a

compromise and the same was filed before this Court.

3. The defacto-complainant and the accused are present and this

Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto-complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

represented that they entered into a compromise and he has no objection

to quash the FIR. A compromise memo, dated 11.03.2025 signed by the

parties and their respective counsel, is also filed before this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

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

thereby he strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.

5. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".

6. 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.

7. In this case, as per the available records, the victim did not

sustain any injuries on the vital part of the body and the petitioner 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 FIR and under investigation. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above

said judgment.

8. 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.

9. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed

and the First Information Report in Crime No.12 of 2025 dated

09.01.2025 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed.





                                                                                                    18.03.2025

                     NCC                : Yes / No
                     Index              : Yes / No
                     Internet           : Yes
                     LR




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                      ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )






                     To

                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                     Rep by the Inspector of Police,
                     Gangaikondan Police Station,
                     Tirunelveli District.

                     2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
                     Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
                     Madurai.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )






                                                                              P.DHANABAL, J.

                                                                                                  LR









                                                                                        18.03.2025




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:58:14 am )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter