Muniyasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Soorankudi
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
This matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in para 11, the amount of Rs.5,000/- has been mistakenly typed instead of Rs.2,000/- and this may kindly be modified accordingly.
3. In view of the same, in para 11 of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed in this petition, in line No.5, the typed portion 'Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)' is replaced with 'Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).
4. Barring the above, there are no other modifications to order dated 17.02.2026 passed in this petition.
5. Registry shall issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned incorporating the aforesaid modification.
09.04.2026 sm Note: Issue order copy on 10.04.2026.
1/10
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sm Order made in Dated 09.04.2026 2/10
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI CRL OP(MD). No.1436 of 2026 and CRL MP(MD).Nos.1538 & 1539/2026
1. Muniyasamy
2. Chairman ... Petitioners Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.116/2019).
2. Selvaraj ... Respondents PRAYER :- To call for the records in CC No.350/2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Suriyamuthu N, Advocate.
For Respondent :M/s.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) R2 : M/s.K.Dhanush
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 3/10
528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No.350/2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, the accused persons, due to motive, attacked the defacto complainant with hand and lathi and abused him with filthy language. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.116 of 2019 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in CC No. 350 of 2021 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Villathikulam, for the same offences. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed. 3.
Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are known to each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 09.01.2026 has been filed before this Court. 4.
The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by the 4/10
Mr.Narayanasamy, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.
5.
The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of noncompoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement. 6.
The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai 2012 (10) SCC 303 5/10
Aahir v. State of Gujarat2, wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.
7.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan3, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the proceedings, and the overall impact on society and must satisfy itself that the settlement is voluntary and not the result of coercion or undue influence.
2017 (9) SCC 641 2019 (5) SCC 688 6/10
8.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioners, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise. 9.
The dispute in question is predominantly private in character and does not involve any offence having serious or grave impact on society at large. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
10.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lovely Salhotra and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another4, has held that where a clear offence is made out against the prime accused and no offence is made out against the peripheral accused, the Court can certainly consider quashing the charges against those accused, against whom no offence is made out. 11.
Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet in CC No.350/2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, AIR 2017 SC 2595 7/10
Thoothukudi District, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for establishing an E-Library to the credit of the MBHAA, in Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Branch, Account No.496038755 IFSC No.IDIB000H040, MICR Code: 625019020, on or before 27.02.2026. The joint compromise memo dated 09.01.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order. 11.
The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 27.02.2026. List the matter on 06.03.2026, for reporting compliance. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.02.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam 8/10
2.The Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.116/2019).
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1436 of 2026 and CRL MP(MD).Nos.1538 & 1539/2026 9/10
Date : 17/02/2026 10/10