Allowed¶42

Saraswathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Woraiyur

Madras HC13 Feb 2026CRL OP(MD)/3052/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench Madras High Court Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3052 of 2026 quash FIR on compromise Section 528 BNSS Sections 294(b) 323 427 IPC landlord tenant dispute auto damage voluntary joint compromise memo 12.01.2026 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan inherent power non-compoundable offence abuse of process ends of justice E-Library deposit MBHAA Woraiyur Trichy Sheik Abdullah Saraswathi Aravindan @ Purusothaman

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023 quashed in entirety; Criminal Original Petition allowed; joint compromise memo dated 12.01.2026 made part and parcel of the order; each petitioner to deposit Rs.5000/- towards the MBHAA E-Library. ¶42

Saraswathi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Woraiyur — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 427 of IPC arising out of a landlord-tenant dispute, can be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court satisfied itself that the compromise between the parties was voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence, the defacto complainant having stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Applying the Gian Singh / Parbatbhai Aahir / Laxmi Narayan principles, the Court found the dispute predominantly private in character, involving no offence with serious or grave impact on society at large.

¶41

Key takeaways

In view of the compromise, the possibility of conviction was rendered remote and bleak; continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023 (Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy City), registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 427 of IPC arising from a landlord-tenant dispute: after the petitioners demanded the premises for own use, the defacto complainant alleged abuse and attack on him and his wife and damage to his Auto over a claimed balance amount. The parties thereafter resolved the dispute amicably (Joint Compromise Memo dated 12.01.2026); both appeared in person, the defacto complainant declined to pursue the FIR, and the Court verified the compromise was voluntary and free of coercion. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held the dispute predominantly private, the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, and continuation of proceedings an abuse of process; accordingly the FIR was quashed in entirety and the petition allowed, subject to each petitioner depositing Rs.5000/- towards the MBHAA E-Library.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.3052 of 2026

¶6

1.Saraswathi

¶7

2.Aravindan @ Purusothaman

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy City.

¶11

Crime No.1906 of 2023

¶12

2.Sheik Abdullah ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

¶14

2023, to call for the records in Crime No.1906 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Rajalingam For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.G.Pitchaimani

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the second

¶21

respondent/defacto complainant is the tenant of the petitioners. The first petitioner informed the second respondent that the house is required for own purpose, following which, the second respondent shifted to the nearby house. When the balance amount was asked by the second respondent, the first petitioner abused the defacto complainant and his wife and also attacked them and also damaged the defacto complainant's Auto. Based on the complaint, FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 427 of IPC.

¶22

3.Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are residing in the same locality and they have now resolved the dispute

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 12.01.2026 has been filed before this Court.

¶26

4.The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.A.Gnana Prakash, SSI, Woraiyur Police Station. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR against the petitioners. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

¶27

5.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 non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends

¶28

1 2012 10 SCC 303

¶29

3/8

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

6.The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai 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.

¶33

2(2017) 9 SCC 641

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

8.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioners, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise.

¶38

3(2019) 5 SCC 688

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

9.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.

¶42

10.Accordin gly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.1906 of 2023 is quashed in entirety and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- each 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. The joint compromise memo dated 12.01.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶43

13.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No (1/2) Index : Yes / No Rmk

¶44

6/8

¶45

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

¶46

¶47