V.Vimal Joseph v. State by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Mar 2026CRL OP/7235/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court quashing of FIR on amicable compromise/joint compromise memo despite non-compoundable offences (Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 506(1) IPC); quashment at investigation stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS; night club lease/business dispute between fast food stall operator and de facto complainant; Parbathbahi Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 guidelines followed; State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 caution relied on; Selaiyur Police Station Cr.No.688/2023 dated 19.11.2023; CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 decided 27-03-2026 by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.688 of 2023 and the investigation therein, on the file of the 1st respondent police, against the petitioners. ¶¶41

V.Vimal Joseph Vs State by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.688 of 2023 and the investigation therein, on the file of the 1st respondent police, against the petitioners.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Cr.No.688/2023 (offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC, still at the stage of investigation) pending with the 1st respondent police should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶¶33

Court's answer

The parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves: they appeared before the Court in person, their identities were confirmed by the Sub Inspector of Police, a Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.03.2026 was filed, and the business dispute over who is to run the Night Club stands resolved.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose will be served in keeping the FIR pending even though the offences involved are not compoundable; following the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 and exercising due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the First Information Report.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and, as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.688 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent police is quashed against the petitioners.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.; decision dated 27-03-2026) allowed CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of BNSS and quashed the FIR in Cr.No.688/2023 dated 19.11.2023 of T-12 Selaiyur Police Station, registered against six petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC at the instance of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant Ilaiyaraja. The FIR arose from a business dispute over who was to run a night club premises taken on lease. With the case still at the stage of investigation, the parties settled amicably, appeared before the Court in person (identities confirmed by SI M.Muthuraman) and filed a Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.03.2026. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending even though the offences are not compoundable, and following the Supreme Court guidelines in Parbathbhai Ahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 while exercising due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the FIR and the investigation against the petitioners.

¶1

CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026

¶7

Vimal Joseph

¶8

S.Kumar

¶9

K.Sivakumar

¶10

(his name is shown as siva in FIR)

¶11

G.Hariharan

¶12

(his name is shown as hari in FIR)

¶13

Joseph Agustin (alais) James

6. R.Lingaselvam

..Petitioner(s)

State by, The Inspector of Police, T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Pallikaranai District, Chennai-600 073. Cr.no.688/2023.

¶18

2. Ilaiyaraja

¶19

..Respondent(s)

¶20

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, pleased to call for the records in Cr.No.688/2023 dated 19.11.2023 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Inspector of Police, T-12 Selaiyur Police and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Preethi Basker For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1 M/s.R.Pavithra for R2

¶22

__________ Page1 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.688 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 147, 448, 294 (b) and 506 (1) of I.P.C. on the file of 1^st respondent Police Station.

¶27

2.The contention of the petitioners is that there was some dispute over operation of the night club by the defacto-complainant. The defactocomplainant was running a night club taking lease from one Sundaram since 01.06.2023. The first petitioner also operated a fast food shop within a portion of the night club premises. The other petitioners visited the Fast Food joint at that time the defacto-complainant picked up a quarrel and disturbed his fast food business which got magnified and projected as though the petitioners assaulted and threatened the defacto-complainant. There was also some dispute with regard to change of lease right in running the Night club.

¶28

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defactocomplainant was running a Night Club Hotel owned by one Sundaram. While Sundaram initially leased the Night Club business to the first petitioner from 01.06.2023 to 30.05.2025, later business handed over to the defactocomplainant on 01.06.2023. The first petitioner was permitted only to run a small fast food stall in the said premises. On 19.11.2023, first petitioner called other petitioners his friends who entered the fast food joint threatened and

¶29

Page2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026

¶32

abused the defacto-complainant and forced him to move away from the Night Club business. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.688 of 2023 for the offences under Section 147, 448, 294 (b) and 506 (1) of I.P.C.

¶33

4.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶34

5.Today the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by Mr.M.Muthuraman, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1 st respondent Police Station. This Court enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioners and the 2 nd respondent filed Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.03.2026 before this Court. The dispute got magnified due to business dispute, who is to run the Night Club, all issues now resolved.

¶35

6.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @

¶36

Page3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026

¶39

Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10) , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶40