Tamil Thendral v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Tamil Thendral S/o.Soundararajan, 3/288, Tholar Salai, Eraiyur, Pennadam, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District - 606 111.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore. (Crime No.59 of 2021)

2. Ashok S/o.Palanivel, Vaithiyanathapuram, Nadutheru, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.45/2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thittakudi and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.DIWAKAR For Respondent(s):

Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

ORDER

The petitioner/A4 facing trial in C.C.No.45 of 2022 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(2) filed this quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2021 at about 20.45 hours defacto complainant Ashok was standing near his grandmother's house and speaking with her. There was already a land dispute between the defacto complainant's family with the family of the petitioner. A1 Natarajan, came there and attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log on head and hand. A2 Govindhan, A3 Rajasuriyan, A4 Tamil Thendral/petitioner and A5 Poonga, all joined together abused and attacked with wooden log. When Palanivel LW2 intervened, A2 is said to have attacked him with a Koduvaal and LW3 was abused by all the accused. As regards the petitioner/A4, there is no specific overt act.

3.The contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant on realising that the petitioner was mistakenly implicated in this case and after the request of the petitioner's family, he decided to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner alone, considering that the petitioner is law student recently completed his education suring the pendency of the case, he is unable to enroll as an advocate. The same was informed to the respondent police and request to relieve the petitioner from the case and the respondent police refused. Thereafter, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case has been registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court in C.C. No.45 of 2022. The trial Court had taken cognizance of the case for offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC . Now, the trial is pending. At this stage, quash petition has been filed. He further submitted that the compromise entered between the petitioner/A4 and the defacto complaint and was enquired. The defacto complainant confirmed the same.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner alone and in this regard, a joint compromise memo entered into between them, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder:

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

8.The petitioner and the defacto complainant appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. 9.On being interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant and the petitioner stated that they are willing to settle the dispute and the defacto complainant is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner alone and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 10.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case 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 Supreme 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 case in C.C.No.45 of 2022, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thittakudi. 11.In the present case, the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner alone. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner alone in C.C.No.45 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thittakudi. 12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.

I, Thittakudi, is quashed against the petitioner/A4 alone and the terms of affidavit and joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. It is made clear that quashing of criminal proceedings with regard to A4 will not enure to the advantage of the other accused during trial.

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thittakudi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore. (Crime No.59 of 2021) 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms 24-04-2026