Allowed¶28

Neelakandan v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2026CRL OP/19624/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC CRL OP 19624/2026 (decided 23-07-2026, J. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy): FIR Crime No. 282/2023, Peelamedu PS, Coimbatore City, S.387 IPC (robbery-type threat at knife point during birthday party; 3 accused), quashed qua petitioner Neelakandan alone on compromise with de facto complainant Praveen Kumar; invoked S.528 BNSS 2023 / S.482 CrPC quashing-on-compromise jurisdiction per Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; counsel: R. Prabakar for petitioner; R. Rajasekaran (Govt. of TN, Criminal Side) for R1; outcome: petition allowed, FIR quashed as against petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. No.19624 of 2026 allowed; FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 (Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City) quashed as against the petitioner (Neelakandan) alone, on the ground of compromise. ¶28

Neelakandan Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Crl.O.P. No.19624 of 2026 allowed; FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 (Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City) quashed as against the petitioner (Neelakandan) alone, on the ground of compromise.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 387 of I.P.C., should be quashed as against the petitioner on the ground of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent (de facto complainant).

¶13

Court's answer

The Court determined that the matter is a fit case for the exercise of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction (under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS, whose broad contours for quashing on compromise of non-compoundable offences were laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh) to quash the FIR on compromise.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The basis for quashing was that the de facto complainant agreed before the Court that the petitioner did not commit the offence, was wrongly included along with the other accused, and that their differences had been ironed out; the parties stood by their compromise on examination.

¶28

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 stands quashed as against the petitioner alone (not against the other accused).ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT | CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 | Neelakandan v. The State (Inspector of Police, Peelamedu P.S., Coimbatore City) & Anr. | Decided 23-07-2026 | Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy (sole Judge). Petition under Sec.528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 (alleged offences under Sections 387 of I.P.C.). Ground: compromise between petitioner and 2nd Respondent (de facto complainant), who appeared before the Court and confirmed the settlement. Invoking the framework in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) regarding quashing on compromise of non-compoundable offences via S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS jurisdiction, and noting the de facto complainant's admission that the petitioner did not commit the offence and was mistakenly/wrongly included among the three accused who threatened him at knife point during a birthday celebration, the Court held the matter fit for extraordinary jurisdiction and ALLOWED the petition, QUASHING the FIR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALONE (other accused unaffected; no direction recorded regarding the balance investigation against them). No quantum involved.

¶1

CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026

¶6

Neelakandan S/o. Mahenderan No.1/112, North Street, Therbogi, Ramanathapuram-623522

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The State rep by the Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶10

Praveen Kumar S/o. Thiyagarajan, D.No.1/269, Thangappapuram, Kattorani Post, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2023 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner on the ground of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For R1

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District for alleged offences under Sections 387 of I.P.C. on the ground of compromise between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further.

¶20

The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments.

¶21

The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioner herein and the de facto complainant are friends. While so, it is submitted by the de facto complainant, when there was a birthday celebration, there were several friends and 3 accused have also came there and threatened the de facto complainant at knife point and taken away money and also the phone and the other articles. Hence, this case. As far as the present petitioner before this court is concerned,

¶22

he is said to be the friend of the de facto complainant, who was present in the

¶23

Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026

¶26

scene as a person taking part in the birthday party and has got no track with the others. It is submitted that mistakenly his name is also included as an accused. The de facto complainant submitted that he has ironed out his differences, if any with this petitioner alone is considerd and he does not want to proceed with the case as against the petitioner.

¶27

Thus, it can be seen that this matter is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise.

¶28

Since it is agreed by the de facto complainant that this petitioner did not commit the offence, but he was wrongly included along with the other persons and that they have ironed out their differences between them, I am of the view that as against the petitioner alone the case can be considered and accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No.19624 of 2026 stands allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District stands quashed as against this petitioner alone.

¶29

23-07-2026

¶30

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To

¶31