Neighbouring parties to a 2016 FIR for offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 IPC filed joint quashing petitions after amicable settlement. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the court quashed the FIR and proceedings as non-compoundable offences could be quashed on compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
M.Aandichami @ Aandikalai ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 22339 of 2024 R.Ramachandran ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
21067 of 2024
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District, (Crime No.463 of 2016)
2.Thennarasu ... Respondents in both petitions
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions - filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.463 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2.
In both petitions:
For Petitioner : Ms.B.Deepa For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.P.Manikandan
1/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.463 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent Police.
2 . The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in both petitions and the defacto complainant are neighbors. There arose a quarrel with regard to the barking of dog of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint has been lodged.
3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both petitions would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.463 of 2016, dated 29.08.2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC.
4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time,
the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
5 . Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 02.01.2025, have been filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before this Court, which have been signed by the petitioner in both
2/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
petitions and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner in both petitions and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.I.Rajarajan, SSI of Police, Othakadai Polie Station, Madurai District as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
6 . In the instant case, the petitioner in both the cases and the defacto complainant are neighbors and they compromised the matter amicably. The High Court has power to quash the complaint even if the offences are non compoundable in nature, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
7 . The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
8 . In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.463 of 2016, pending before the
3/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
first respondent Police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9 . Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.463 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memos dated 02.01.2025, shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.01.2025
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
ta
To
4/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
ta
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.22339 and 21067 of 2024
06.01.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Can the FIR in Crime No.463 of 2016 under Sections 294(b) and 324 IPC be quashed on the basis of an amicable compromise between neighbouring parties despite non-compoundable offences?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶7
(2012)10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶7
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Aandichami @ Aandikalai
R.Ramachandran
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District
Thennarasu
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
