A.Ganapathi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thirumangalam Town

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.269 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District, and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mahendra Pathy For Respondents : Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar (R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr. P.Kalimuthu (R2)

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.269 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶16

The gist of the allegations in the FIR is that due to previous enmity on 03.08.2025, at about 05.30 p.m, the petitioner is said to have abused the complainant in filthy language and attacked him with a sword and caused blood injuries. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.269 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act (Corresponding Section 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC). Seeking quashment of the FIR, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are known to each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 13.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

¶18

2/7

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by the police officials of Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

¶21

The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of noncompoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

¶22

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶23

3/7

¶24

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

¶25

6.

¶26

The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai

¶27

Aahir v. State of Gujarat² , wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

¶28

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan³ , the Supreme

¶29

Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the proceedings, and the overall impact on society and must satisfy itself that the settlement is voluntary and not the result of coercion or undue influence.

¶30

2 2017 (9) SCC 641

¶31

3 2019 (5) SCC 688

¶32

4/7

¶33

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

¶34

8.

¶35

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

¶36

this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioner, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise.

¶37

The dispute in question is predominantly private in character and does not involve any offence having serious or grave impact on society at large. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

¶38

Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.269 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for establishing an E-Library to the credit of the MBHAA, in Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Branch, Account No. 496038755 IFSC No.IDIB000H040, MICR Code: 625019020, on or before 15.04.2026. The joint compromise memo dated 13.02.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶39

5/7

¶40

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

¶41