M.Krishnan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.M.Krishnan 2.M.Machavallavan @ Machavallan 3.M.Arumugam 4.C.Arun 5.E.Kumaravel @ Kumaran 6.R.Lukesh ... Petitioners vs.
1.The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, M-5 New Ennore Police Station, Ennore, Chennai - 600 057.
Crime No.30/2025.
2.Sankar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.30 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :
M/s.Shaikh Mehrunnisa Kasim For R1 :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T For R2 :
Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar Page No.1 of 6
ORDER
The petitioners/accused in Crime No.30 of 2025 for offence under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitam, 2023 on the file of the respondent Police has filed this Criminal Original Petition.
2.Case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2025 the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that on 16.01.2025 at about 9.30 p.m., when he was at his house, the neighbours informed him that some persons were quarrelling in the house of Sasikumar, brother of 2nd respondent's wife, immediately he went to the house of Sasikumar wherein he saw the petitioners entering the house of Sasikumar to attack his son Dhanush. At that time, the defacto complainant intervened to resolve the issue, for which the petitioners attacked him, in which the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was taken to Sugam Hospital for treatment. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.30 of 2025 for offence under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners.
Page No.2 of 6
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to wordy altercation, there was physical attack by both the parties and it is a case in counter. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioners. Both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, he prays for quashing.
4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that on 16.01.2025 at about 9.30 p.m., his neighbours informed him that some persons were quarrelling in the house of his wife's brother Sasikumar. Immediately, the 2nd respondent went to his house where he saw the petitioners entering the house of Sasikumar to attack his son Dhanush, at that time, defacto complainant intervened to resolve the issue, in which, the petitioners attacked defacto complainant and he sustained injuries. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.30 of 2025 for offence under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), Page No.3 of 6
115(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners. Now the investigation is going-on. In the meantime, both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues. 5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
6.Today the petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mr.Vijay, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st 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 2nd respondent have filed separate affidavit before this Court and also filed the Joint Compromise Memo.
7.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences Page No.4 of 6
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 1st respondent Police.
8.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.30 of 2025, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioners.
27.03.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse Page No.5 of 6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse To 1.The Inspector of Police, M-5 New Ennore Police Station, Ennore, Chennai - 600 057.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
27.03.2026 Page No.6 of 6