Disposed¶37

Thangavelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2026CRL RC(MD)/88/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

joint compromise memo; conviction set aside on amicable settlement; acquittal following compromise; criminal revision under Section 438/442 BNSS 2023; Crl.R.C.(MD)No.88 of 2025; C.C.No.23 of 2022 Kadaladi; Crl.A.No.27 of 2024 Ramanathapuram; Crime No.47 of 2021 Keelaselvanoor; Sections 147, 448, 427, 294(b), 323 IPC; Section 4 TNPHW Act; property dispute between coparceners; family dispute compromise; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Ramanathapuram district

What did the court decide?

Joint Compromise Memo accepted; orders of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram (Crl.A.No.27 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024) and the Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi (C.C.No.23 of 2022, dated 28.03.2024) set aside; petitioners acquitted; revision disposed of with the memo forming part and parcel of the order. ¶37

Thangavelu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the judgments of the Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi (C.C.No.23 of 2022, dated 28.03.2024) and the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram (Crl.A.No.27 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024) should be set aside.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Joint Compromise Memo, the orders passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and the Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi are set aside and the respondents are consequently acquitted.

¶37

Key takeaways

The criminal revision petition stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, which shall form part and parcel of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.88 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Mohammed Shaffiq J., decided 09.01.2026): Nine petitioners, convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi in C.C.No.23 of 2022 (judgment dated 28.03.2024) for offences under Sections 147, 448, 427, 294(b), 323 IPC r/w Section 4 of the TNPHW Act arising from Crime No.47 of 2021, and whose appeal was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram in Crl.A.No.27 of 2024 (dated 25.10.2024), filed this revision under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioners and the defacto complainant (Mrs.Kaladevi), being distance relatives, neighbours and coparceners whose dispute arose over family property, filed a Joint Compromise Memo recording an amicable settlement advised by family elders. Holding the compromise sufficient, the High Court set aside the orders of both courts below, acquitted the petitioners, and disposed of the revision in terms of the memo, declaring it part and parcel of the order.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 09.01.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶5

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.88 of 2025

¶6

Thangavelu

¶7

Ananthavalli

¶8

Suriya

¶9

Sathiyaraj

¶10

Deivaraj

¶11

Guru

¶12

Suresh Kumar 8. Kaleeswaran 9. Suresh Kumar ..Petitioners Vs.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, Keelaselvanoor Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ..Respondent

¶14

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed in Crl A No. 27/2024 dt. 25.10.2024 by the learned Principal Sessions court, Ramanathapuram which was confirmed in C.C no. 23/2022 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi dated 28.03.2024.

¶15

For Petitioner : Lakshmi Gopinathan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaisamy Government Advocate

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent have submitted that the matters have been resolved and a Joint Compromise Memo has been filed. The same reads as under:-

¶21

“ JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (Mrs.Kaladevi)

¶22

It is submitted that based on complaint given by the Defacto complainant, the Respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.47/2021, against the petitioners, for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 448, 427, 294(b), 323 IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act.

¶23

It is submitted that after filing charge sheet by the Respondent Police, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.23/2022 by the Hon'ble District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Judge and the Hon'ble Trial Court, in its judgment dated 28.03.2024, had convicted the petitioners. Against the said order the

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

petitioners had prefer the appeal in Crl.A.No.27 of 2024, before the Learned Principal Sessions Court Ramanathapuram. But the same was also dismissed on 25.10.2024, by confirming the punishment imposed by the trial court. Therefore, the petitioners filed the revision petition in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.88 of 2025, before this Hon'ble Court, challenging the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶27

It is submitted that the defecto complainant and the petitioners are distance relatives and neighbours, more particularly they are coparceners and due to the property dispute among the both the families of the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein. The defacto complainant lodged the criminal complainant against the petitioners in Crime No. 47 of 2021. It is submitted that the some of the petitioners herein are graduates who are aspiring for government competitive examinations. Therefore, the elders of the family had advised both the parties to settle the

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

dispute amicably among them and therefore both parties have decided to settle the dispute amicability among them.

¶31

It is submitted that the petitioners had already undergone mental agony ad stress for more than five years and since the dispute is only same family and the parties are intended to compromise the complaint this compromise memo is filed before this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'bi Court may be pleased to accept the present Joint Compromise Memo and set-aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.27 of 2024 by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in its judgment dated 25.10.2024 in C.C.No.23 of 2022 by Learned Judicial

¶33

Magistrate, Kadaladi dated 28.03.2024, pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties and pass such further or other orders of this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

In view of the Joint Compromise Memo, orders passed by the

¶37

learned Principal Sessions court, Ramanathapuram and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are acquitted.

¶38