← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/32313/2025allowed

Surya v. The Inspector Of Police,

2026-04-17Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.Nos.32313 & 34128 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.22447 & 23883 of 2025 Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2025:

1.Surya 2.Dillibabu 3.Praveenkumar 4.Naveenkumar 5.Nandhakumar @ Nanthakumar 6.Jegan @ Jagankumar 7.Jalakandeeshwaran @ Jalagandeswaran 8.Narasimman ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Kondapalayam Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.191/2025).

2.Munieeswaran, Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapalayam Police, Ranipet District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for records from the 1st respondent Police in Crime No.191 of 2025 and to quash the same. Page No.1 of 10

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For R1 :

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted by Ms.Harshana.T Crl.O.P.No.34128 of 2025:

1.Thennarasu 2.Kaviyarasu 3.Arun @ Arunkumar 4.Vignesh 5.Rajadurai 6.Anishkumar 7.Sakthivel ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Kondapalayam Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.191/2025).

2.Munieeswaran, Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapalayam Police, Ranipet District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for records from the 1st respondent Police in Crime No.191 of 2025 and to quash the same. For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Sukumaran For R1 :

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.2 of 10

COMMON ORDER The petitioners (A1 to A8) in Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2025 and the petitioners (A9 to A15) in Crl.O.P.No.24128 of 2025 filed Quash Petitions to quash the FIR in Crime No.191 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025 for offence under Sections 189(3), 296(b), 194 & 115(2) of BNS, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

2.Case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2025, the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police lodged a complaint stating that on 19.10.2025 at about 03.30 p.m., when he was on patrol duty in Kodaikkal village and passing by Government High School, Kodaikkal, he saw villagers assembled in the playground in two groups and engaged in a fight during a game of cricket. The 2nd respondent asked them to disperse, and they dispersed. Again on 20.10.2025 at about 06.00 p.m., near Village Administrative Office, Kodaikkal village, both groups found fighting. Hence, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.191 of 2025 for offence under Sections 189(3), 296(b), 194 & 115(2) of BNS against the petitioners herein. 3.Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in both petitions submitted that the petitioners/both groups are from the same village. One Page No.3 of 10

group from the village and the other group from the colony. While playing cricket, fight arose between them. The petitioners, in teens, in a rush of blood, picked up a quarrel, exchanged heated words, and there was a push and pull, thereafter, both groups got separated. Subsequently, the groups again assembled near the Village Administrative Office and picked up a quarrel. This incident magnified as though both groups were fighting and not heeding the advice of the Police to disperse, hence, committed the offence. Further submitted that arraying one group as A1 to A8 and the other group as A9 to A15 in a single FIR, it is certain the investigation would lead to nowhere and further continuation of the case against the petitioners would create obstacle to their future studies and career.

The petitioners belong to the same locality, but residing in different parts of the village. All of them are students pursuing their education. Now with the intervention of the elders and family members, the issue got resolved amicably and both groups are now friendly playing games together and living in harmony and filed quash petitions. In support of their compromise, the petitioners filed joint compromise memo and prayed for quashing the FIR.

4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 1st respondent Police submitted that in this case, the complainant/2nd respondent is a Sub Page No.4 of 10

Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. While he was on patrol duty on 19.10.2025, found the petitioners in two groups fighting with each other during the game of cricket, using abusive words, and there was push and pull. Despite the 2nd respondent warning them to disperse, the petitioners not heeded and continued their fight. Again, on 20.10.2025, near the Village Administrative Office, the two groups were found fighting. Hence, to deter them from continuing such act and to prevent further escalation of tension leading to serious offence, FIR registered. He fairly submitted that it was a fight between two groups during the game of cricket and all the petitioners are teenagers pursuing their education and have no bad antecedents. He further submitted that on verification with the villagers and elders, it is found the issue between them resolved amicably and compromise arrived at and all are residing in harmony.

5.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioners during the game of cricket, had a dispute and fight between them. Now at the intervention of the elders and family members, the issue resolved and the compromise arrived at between them and they have no bad antecedents. Further the continuation of proceedings against the two groups in one FIR would lead to nowhere.

Page No.5 of 10

6.Today all the petitioners appeared before this Court and their identification confirmed by Mr.G.Marimuthu, Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court had interaction with the petitioners who confirmed the compromise arrived between them and filing of joint compromise memo. Scanned reproduction of the joint compromise memo is as follows:

Page No.6 of 10

Page No.7 of 10

7.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report 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 Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl (10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the FIR. 8.In the result, Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the FIR in Crime No.119 of 2025 dated 21.10.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent Police is quashed against the petitioners/A1 to A15. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

17.04.2026 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No vv2 Page No.8 of 10

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kondapalayam Police Station, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

Page No.9 of 10

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2 17.04.2026 Page No.10 of 10