Soundhararajan @ Soundar Raj v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.9671 of 2026

1. Soundhararajan @ Soundar Raj

2. Vengatraj

3. Arjunan

4. Narasingam .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.237 of 2015

2. Sankar .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in C.C.No.146 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Stepanson For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners / accused facing trial in C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 352 and 506(ii) of I.P.C, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the petitioners / accused is that the case of the prosecution arose from a sudden wordy quarrel on 09.07.2015 between the daughters of the de facto complainant/second respondent and the fourth petitioner. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant went to the third petitioner's house to question this dispute, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 used filthy language, assaulted the de facto complainant and others with a stick causing injury, and threatened. Based on the complaint, the first respondent Police registered Crime No.237 of 2015. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 352, and 506(ii) of the IPC, which is currently pending as C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. However, it is submitted that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment due to a sudden neighborhood dispute. With the intervention of family elders and well-wishers, the parties have 2/6

now amicably settled the entire issue to restore peace and secure their future welfare. The de facto complainant has entered into a joint compromise memo without any coercion, stating they have no grudge and no intention to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioners. 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, F.I.R in Crime No.146 of 2016 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.146 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 352, and 506(ii) of the IPC. 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.

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 3/6

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.Tamilselvam, SubInspector of Police attached to the first 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 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.146 of 2016 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 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.146 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate 4/6

No.II, Panruti.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs and Crl.M.P.No.9671 of 2026 12.06.2026 6/6