Madras High Court
Manickaraja vs State Of Tamilnadu on 21 March, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025
Manickaraja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.868 of 2011).
2.Sampathkumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.C.No.
222 of 2014 in Crime No.868 of 2011 on the file of learned Sub Court,
Kovilpatti and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4981 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records
relating to the charge sheet in S.C.No.222 of 2014 in Crime No.868 of
2011 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 341,
294(b), 307 and 506(2) of IPC on the file of learned Sub Court,
Kovilpatti and quash the same.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsels
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
represented that they entered into a compromise and he has no objection
to allow this petition. A compromise memo signed by the parties and
their respective counsels is also filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent police has strongly opposed on the ground that the
petitioner has so many previous cases and produced the list of pending
cases against the petitioner.
5. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
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 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 ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
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".
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
7. In this case, as per the available records, the victim did not
sustain any injuries and the petitioner had 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 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.
8. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and the above said
judgment and this Court also perused the list of pending cases and most
of the case are already disposed of. The petitioner has also stated that all
the cases were foisted against him and that is why, in most of the cases,
he was acquitted. Considering the nature of offences and no vital parts
of the body was affected by the defacto complainant, this Court is of the
opinion that it is appropriate to allow this petition.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the proceedings in S.C.No.222 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
Ordinate Court, Kovilpatti is quashed.
21.03.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
Mac
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3. The Sub Court,
Kovilpatti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
P. DHANABAL, J.
Mac
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 06:46:22 pm )
