[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Gandhi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By on 20 February, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No.3660 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 20/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
CRL OP(MD). No.3660 of 2026
1. Gandhi
2. Baskar
3. Kamaraj ... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Trichy District.
(Crime No. 14/2014).
2. Dharmaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER :-
To call for records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in CC No. 8/2024
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar,
Advocate.
For Respondent : M/s.S.Ravi for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
: M/s.D.Venkatesh for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.3660 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.8
of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to
property dispute, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy
language and attacked him, thereby causing injuries. Pursuant to the
complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case
in Crime No.14 of 2014 was registered on the file of the first respondent
against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 120(b),
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC [Corresponding to the
provision under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
351(2) of BNS]. Thereafter altered to the offence under Section 120(b),
420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC [corresponding to the
provisions under Section 61(2), 318(4), 322, 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
351(2) of BNS, 2023 and the same culminated in laying final report in
C.C.No.8 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, for the
offences under 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
[Corresponding to the provision under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(2),
338, 336(3), 340(2). 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 16.02.2026 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
Mr.T.Selladurai, District Crime Branch, Trichy 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
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
of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
2 2017 (9) SCC 641
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
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
case, this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the
allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the
3 2019 (5) SCC 688
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
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 CC No. 8/2024 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, is quashed and this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Each petitioner 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 13.03.2026. The joint
compromise memo dated 16.02.2026 shall form part and parcel of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
11. The petitioner is directed to file a memo along with the
photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 13.03.2026.
List the matter on 16.03.2026, for reporting compliance.
20.02.2026
NCC : yes / no
Index : yes / no
Internet : yes / no
pnn
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.
(Crime No. 14/2014).
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J
pnn
ORDER
IN
Date : 20/02/2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 03:18:13 pm )
