[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Manikandan Sethupathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2026
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3806 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3806 of 2026
1.Manikandan Sethupathi
2.Karthik
3.Muthukumaran
4.Boovalingam @ Ligeswaran
5.Pulithevan
6.Ananth @ Anand
7.Muniswaran
8.Venkatesan @ Chettiyar ... Petitioners/
Accused No. 4, 5, 9 - 11, 15 - 17
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Gandhi Market Police Station,
Trichy District.
(Crime No. 347 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Aslam ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the
records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in SC No.355 of 2025 on the file of the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichy and quash the same
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3806 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Mohanasundaram
For Respondents : Mr. B.Thanga Aravindh (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr. P.Sonu (R2)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section
528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in SC No.355 of 2025 on the file
of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, insofar as the
petitioners are concerned.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, the accused
persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him
with iron rod and also criminally intimidated him. Pursuant to the complaint
given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.347
of 2020 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners
and others for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324, 506(2),
307 of IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and the same culminated in laying final report in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
Sessions SC No.355 of 2025 before the file of the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 341, 506(2) & 307 of IPC. 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 Nil.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.Ilangovan,
Special Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, 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 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
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 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.
2 2017 (9) SCC 641
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
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.
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
3 2019 (5) SCC 688
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
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 SC No.355 of 2025 before the file of
the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, 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
06.03.2026. The joint compromise memo dated Nil.02.2026 shall form part and
parcel of this order.
4 AIR 2017 SC 2595
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
12. The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the
photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 09.03.2026. List the
matter on 10.03.2026, for reporting compliance.
23.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Sm
TO:-
1. The Inspector of Police,
Gandhi Market Police Station,
Trichy District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sm
Order made in
Dated
23.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:37:37 pm )
