Madras High Court
Vivek vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 March, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 21.03.2025
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr. Justice P.DHANABAL
Crl. O.P(MD)No.13588 of 2024
1. Vivek
2. Vinoth Raja
3. SenthilKumar
4. Barani
5. Pandiyan
6. Santhosh ... Petitioner s
vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Ammapet Police Station
Thanjavur District
2. Balasundar ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S, to call for the records connected with the case in S.C.No.289 o f
2023 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam and
quash the same as illegal.
For petitioners : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : M/s.Lavanya
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the pending
proceedings in S.C.No.289 of 2023 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.10.2022 at about 7.30
am.,when the defacto complainant and the said Chandrasekaran were
sitting in the northern portion of the land at that time A1 came there
abused him in filthy language and other accused persons abused him in
filthylanguage and trespassed into the Chandrasekaran house and A1
assaulted the defacto complainant, at that time the defacto complainant ran
away from the occurrence spot but A1 chased him and again assauulted in
his right hand and threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter the
villagers called the ambulance and admitted the defacto complainant in the
hospital. Hence FIR has been registered in Cr. No.1578 of 2022 for the
offences under Sections 147,148,294(b),452,324,307 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 petitioners. At
this stage, the petitioners have filed this quash petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
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.
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
have 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
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 there is no any injuries in the vital parts of the body
of the injured. As per the available records, the victim did not sustain any
injuries and the petitoiners have 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
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, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in S.C.No.289 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Subordinate
Court, Kumbakonam is quashed.
21.03.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam
2. The Inspector of Police
Ammapet Police Station
Thanjavur District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13588 of 2024
P.DHANABAL,J
aav
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:46 pm )
