Muniyasamy vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1715 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1715 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2026

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Muniyasamy vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 9 April, 2026

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1436 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the

instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in para

11, the amount of Rs.5,000/- has been mistakenly typed instead of Rs.2,000/-

and this may kindly be modified accordingly.

3. In view of the same, in para 11 of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed

in this petition, in line No.5, the typed portion 'Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand only)' is replaced with 'Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).

4. Barring the above, there are no other modifications to order dated

17.02.2026 passed in this petition.

5. Registry shall issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned

incorporating the aforesaid modification.

09.04.2026

Note: Issue order copy on 10.04.2026.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1436 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1436 of 2026

Dated
09.04.2026

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1436 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 17/02/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI

CRL OP(MD). No.1436 of 2026
and
CRL MP(MD).Nos.1538 & 1539/2026

1. Muniyasamy

2. Chairman ... Petitioners
Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by
Inspector of Police,
Soorankudi Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.116/2019).

2. Selvaraj ... Respondents

PRAYER :-
To call for the records in CC No.350/2021 on the file of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.Suriyamuthu N,
Advocate.

For Respondent :M/s.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

R2 : M/s.K.Dhanush
ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No.350/2021 on the file of

the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, insofar as the

petitioners are concerned.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, the accused

persons, due to motive, attacked the defacto complainant with hand and lathi

and abused him with filthy language. Pursuant to the complaint given by the

defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.116 of 2019 was

registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and others

for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and the same

culminated in laying final report in CC No. 350 of 2021 before the learned

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Villathikulam, for the same offences.

Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are known

to each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint

Compromise Memo dated 09.01.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant

are present before this Court in person and are identified by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.Narayanasamy, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station,

Thoothukudi District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he

does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners herein. This

Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any

coercion or undue influence.

5. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis

of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent

power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may

be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-

compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature

and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew

a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial

disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or

heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter

category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

6. The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Aahir v. State of Gujarat2, wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the

earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of

inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the

paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal

proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether

the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the

possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan 3, the Supreme

Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that

offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity,

grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the

basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The

Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the

High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of

the accused, and the stage of the proceedings, and the overall impact on society

and must satisfy itself that the settlement is voluntary and not the result of

coercion or undue influence.

2 2017 (9) SCC 641 3 2019 (5) SCC 688

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the

relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioners, the stage of the

proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise.

9. The dispute in question is predominantly private in character and

does not involve any offence having serious or grave impact on society at large.

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possibility of

conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal

proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an

abuse of the process of Court.

10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Lovely Salhotra and

another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another4, has held that where a clear

offence is made out against the prime accused and no offence is made out

against the peripheral accused, the Court can certainly consider quashing the

charges against those accused, against whom no offence is made out.

11. Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet in CC No.350/2021 on

the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, 4 AIR 2017 SC 2595

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thoothukudi District, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned and

the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Each of the petitioners shall pay

a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for establishing an E-Library

to the credit of the MBHAA, in Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High

Court Branch, Account No.496038755 IFSC No.IDIB000H040, MICR Code:

625019020, on or before 27.02.2026. The joint compromise memo dated

09.01.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.

11. The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the

photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 27.02.2026. List the

matter on 06.03.2026, for reporting compliance. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.