Allowed¶41

Anthony Sagaya Chandran v. The State Rep By Its

Madras HC27 Mar 2026CRL OP/7590/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet case on compromise/settlement between parties; non-compoundable offences under BNS 2023 (296(b) assault/abuse, 115(2) hurt, 351(2) criminal intimidation); inherent powers quashing jurisdiction S.482 Cr.P.C.; petition filed under S.528 BNSS; Parbathbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 guidelines; State of MP v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 due caution; Joint Compromise Memo; case in counter; CRL OP Madras 2026; M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report in Cr.No.294 of 2025 on the file of the Shankar Nagar Police Station quashed, and as a sequel the proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025 pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram quashed. ¶41

Anthony Sagaya Chandran Vs The State Rep By Its — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025 (arising out of FIR Cr.No.294 of 2025, Shankar Nagar Police Station, for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023) ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the petitioners and the second respondent, notwithstanding that the offences involved are not compoundable.

¶35

Court's answer

The Court enquired both parties in person, their identities were confirmed by the police, and it was satisfied that the petitioners and the second respondent had come to an amicable settlement, evidenced by the Joint Compromise Memo and affidavits filed before the Court.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the First Information Report pending even though the offences involved are not compoundable; following the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and exercising due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, the 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 proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025 pending before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram stand quashed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.): Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed; FIR in Cr.No.294 of 2025 (Shankar Nagar Police Station, Tambaram City) registered under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, and the charge-sheet proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, quashed. Although the offences were not compoundable, investigation was complete, charge sheet filed, and the petitioners and the second respondent (defacto-complainant) had amicably settled, filing a Joint Compromise Memo and affidavits; identities verified and parties enquired in person. Quashing ordered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the light of the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and with due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10.

¶1

CRL OP No. 7590 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. 7590 of 2026

¶7

Anthony Sagaya Chandran

¶8

Raja

¶9

Peter Guspher

4. Anthony Selvaraj

..Petitioner(s)

The State Rep By Its, The Sub Inspector of Police, Shankar Nagar Police Station, Tambaram City Cr.No.294 of 2025

¶14

2. Anthony Sridhar

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.NO.272 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Sasikala For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1 Mr.V.Manimaran for R2.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings against

¶20

the petitioners in C.C.No.272 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram, in Cr.No.294 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 296 (b), 115 (2) and 351 (2) of BNS, 2023.

¶21

__________ Page1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 7590 of 2026

¶24

2 .The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the

¶25

petitioners entered the office of the defacto-complainant, abused him and assaulted him. It is alleged that the third petitioner kicked the defacto-

¶26

complainant on the chest and the fourth petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Consequently, a complaint lodged.

¶27

3 .Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners not involved in any activities as alleged by the 2 nd respondent and they did not use filthy language or physical violence against the 2 nd respondent. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2 nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioners. He further states that the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, he prays for quashing.

¶28

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that based on the defacto-complainant’s complaint, a case has been registered in Cr.No.294 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 296 (b), 115 (2) and 351 (2) of BNS, 2023. Investigation completed and charge sheet filed, taken on file in C.C.No.272 of 2025. It is a case in counter. In the meantime, the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues.

¶29

__________ Page2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP No. 7590 of 2026

¶32

5.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that

¶33

the investigation is completed and charge sheet filed. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶34

6.Today the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by Mr.V.Vetriselvan, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1 st respondent Police Station . . This Court also 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 have filed Joint Compromise Memo and affidavits before this Court.

¶35

7.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 @ 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.

¶36

__________ Page3 of 4

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP No. 7590 of 2026

¶39

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶40

8.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the

¶41

proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025, which is presently pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram, is quashed.

27-03-2026