[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Nanthini vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By on 17 February, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No.2656 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.2656 of 2026
1. Nanthini,
2. Vairan,
3. Murugeshwari,
4. Nandhukumar,
5. Navith @ Nivetha ... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by,
Inspector of Police,
Sindupatti, Police Station,
Madurai.
Crime No.233 of 2022.
2. Muthukumar ... Respondents
PRAYER :-
To call for the records in C.C.No.221 of 2025 on the file of the
Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thirumangalam, Madurai District in
connection with Crime No.233 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of
Police, Sindupatti Police Station, Madurai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2656 of 2026
For Petitioner : M/s.J.Sankarapandian,
Advocate.
For Respondent : M/s.Thanga Aravindh.B
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
R2 : M/s.S.S.Sundarapandian
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /
Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.221 of
2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the accused
persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and
damaged the household articles. When the same was questioned by the
brother and sister-in-law of the defacto complainant, the accused persons
abused the defacto complainant's brother in filthy language and also
attacked him with hands. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto
complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.233 of 2022 was
registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
others for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and
506(1) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in C.C.No.
221 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District 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
residing in the same locality, and they have now resolved the dispute
amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 24.09.2025 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
Mr.N.Paulraj, SI Sindupatti Police Station, Madurai 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
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 Aahir v. State of Gujarat 2, 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
2 2017 (9) SCC 641
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
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 Narayan3, 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.
8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
3 2019 (5) SCC 688
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
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. Accordingly, the impugned final report in in C.C.No.221 of
2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District, is quashed and the Criminal Original
Petition stands allowed. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
MICR Code: 625019020, on or before 27.02.2026. The joint
compromise memo dated 24.09.2025 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.
17.02.2026
NCC : yes / no
Index : yes / no
Internet : yes / no
pnn
L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
pnn
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thirumangalam, Madurai District
2.The Inspector of Police, Sindupatti Police Station,
Madurai. Crime No.233 of 2022.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER
IN
Date : 17/02/2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:12 pm )
