Gopal Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gopal Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 (District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District) quashed as against the petitioner Gopal; joint compromise memo made part and parcel of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 pending against the petitioner, arising out of Crime No.116 of 2009 for offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1984, could be quashed in view of the compromise reached between the petitioner and the second respondent, even though the offences involved are not compoundable.

Court's answer

Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1984.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the legal position / guidelines expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 alive, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

Key takeaways

The Court enquired both parties and satisfied itself that they had come to an amicable settlement on their own voluntarily without any compulsion, pursuant to the Joint Memo of Compromise filed before it.ratio¶26
The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, are quashed as against the petitioner; the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS ON COMPROMISE - Petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 by Gopal seeking quashal of charge sheet/proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 (District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal) arising from FIR Crime No.116 of 2009, registered on the complaint of second respondent Thangapandiyan regarding an incident of 11.03.2009 in which pipes and road worth about Rs.5000/- were allegedly damaged; offences charged: Ss.294(b), 427 and 506(ii) IPC and S.3(1) TNPPDL Act 1984. Case was under trial; parties executed a Joint Memo of Compromise, presented in court, identified by SSI of Police and counsel, and the settlement was found voluntary and without compulsion. Relying on the guidelines in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that where parties have compromised, the High Court has power to quash the complaint notwithstanding the offences being non-compoundable, as continuance would serve no useful purpose. Petition allowed; P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 quashed as against the petitioner; joint compromise memo made part and parcel of the order.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 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)No.22808 of 2024

Gopal ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.116 of 2009 2.Thangapandiyan ... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District and to quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.Solaisammy

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking orders to call for the records in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, and quash the same as illegal, improper and abuse of process of law.

2 . The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was

doing business of cutting trees with proper permission, for which, he spent money to lay road and pipe. On 11.03.2009 at about 08.00 am., when the defacto complainant along with his assistant transporting woods from Korampallam to Veena Company using that road, at that time, the accused persons intercepted the defacto complainant, scolded him with filthy languages as to how he laid the pipe and use that road and also damaged the pipes as well as road worth about Rs.5000/- and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

and F.I.R. registered in Crime No.116 of 2009, after investigation, final report filed, the same taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1984, against the petitioner.

4 . The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. Now, the second respondent is agreeing to withdraw the complaint, not willing to pursue the case.

5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise filed before this Court signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and their respective counsels. The petitioner and the second respondent present before this Court, identified by Mr.L.Ramalingam, SSI of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court enquired both the parties, satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves on their own voluntarily without any compulsion.

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

6 . In the instant case, where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1984.

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 in keeping the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

9 . Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned District

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, is quashed as against the petitioner and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

NCC : Yes / No 06.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Rmk

To

1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District

2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Rmk

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22808 of 2024

Dated: 06.01.2025

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis