[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Anand vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2026
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4570 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4570 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4855 & 4857 of 2026
P.Anand ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
kanyakumari District
(Crime No.583/2025) ... Respondent/Complainant
2.Jaison R Jebanesar @ Jaison R Jebenezer.J
... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge sheet in C.C.No.
607 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Padmanabhapuram and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Daniel Robinson
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4570 of 2026
For R2 : Mr.J.Jeevin
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /
Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the Final Report in C.C.No. 607 of
2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Padmanabhapuram, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.09.2025 at about 5:30 a.m.,
the petitioner/accused entered the compound of the defacto
complainant’s house through an unclosed back door and stole gold
ornaments, including a Thali (8½ sovereigns), a ring (½ sovereign), and
an earring (¼ grams) altogether valued at approximately Rs.9,00,000/-,
belonging to the mother of the defacto complainant. Based on these
allegations, F.I.R in Crime No.583 of 2025 came to be registered for the
offences under Sections 331(4) & 305(a) BNS, 2023 which culminated
in filing final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Padmanabhapuram and was taken file in C.C.No.607 of 2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are residing
in the same locality, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably.
A Joint Compromise Memo dated 26.02.2026 has been filed before this
Court.
4. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant are
present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.John
Edwin, SSI, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District. The
defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to
pursue the FIR against the petitioner. 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
1 2012 10 SCC 303
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
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 04:05:34 pm )
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
petitioner, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the
compromise.
3 (2019) 5 SCC 688
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
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 C.C.No. 607 of
2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Padmanabhapuram is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum
of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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. The joint compromise
memo dated 26.02.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.
11. The petitioner is directed to file a memo along with the
photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 23.03.2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
In the event of non-compliance with the order passed by this Court, the
same shall stand automatically vacated. List the matter on 25.03.2026,
for reporting compliance. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
27.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
gbg
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Padmanabhapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
kanyakumari District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
gbg
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:05:34 pm )
