R.Ajith v. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. R.Ajith

2. M.Senthil Kumar

3. B.Gowtham

4. Rajesh Kumar .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State represented by Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

(Crime No.119 of 2025)

2. A.Akbar .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for records relating to the C.C.No.38 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur district and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Mukesh Kannah For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Mr.K.S.Shyam Sundar, for R2 1/7

ORDER

The petitioners / accused facing trial in C.C.No.38 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur district for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the petitioners / accused is that based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent, alleging that on 07.04.2025 at about 8:30 P.M, the petitioners intercepted him near a ground, surrounded him, and assaulted him with wooden logs due to a prior enmity, causing injuries. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent police registered an F.I.R in Crime No.119 of 2025 at the SIPCOT Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.38 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023. However, it is submitted that the petitioners and the second respondent, who are neighbors, have amicably 2/7

settled all their disputes and differences out of their own free will and without any coercion or undue influence. The parties and their family members have resolved the dispute in its entirety, are now living in harmony, and wish to maintain cordial relations in the future. The second respondent has filed a joint compromise memo and an affidavit stating his unconditional willingness to have the case quashed and indicating that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the matter. The parties have entered into this compromise voluntarily without any coercion, Hence,praying for quashing the case on the ground of compromise.

3. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR in Crime No.119 of 2025 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.38 of 2026 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur district for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023. He further submitted that now the case is at the stage of pending trial. In the meantime, both the petitioners and the second respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues between them. 3/7

4. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of entire materials, it is seen that the case is pending trial. At this stage and also by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and decided to compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

5. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mr.R.Murugan, Head Constable attached to the first respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo to that effect duly signed by both of them.

6. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping C.C.No.38 of 2026 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 4/7

Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjarth and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes C.C.No.38 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, C.C.No.38 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur, is quashed. 12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

5/7

6/7

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 7/7