A.Aravindkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thirumangalam Town

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20/02/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI A.Aravindkumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai, Crime No.291/2025.

2. S.Muniyandi ... Respondents PRAYER :- To call for the records pertaining to CC.No.691/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai and quash the same as against this petitioner.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Mu.Sharavanan, Advocate.

For Respondent :M/s.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) R2 : M/s.S.Lawrence Vimalraj

ORDER

1/8

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No.691 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the defacto complainant is a driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 23.08.2025, when the defacto complainant was on duty, the petitioner who came in a two wheeler, way laid the bus and abused the defacto complainant with filthy language, attacked him with hands and prevented him from discharging Government duty. The petitioner has also made life threat to the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.291 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 351(2) of BNS and the same culminated in laying final report in CC No.691 of 2025 before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, for the same offences. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed. 2/8

3.

Admittedly, the petitioner, the second respondent are known to each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 17.02.2026 has been filed before this Court. 4.

The petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.Senthamarai Kannan, Tirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he do not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner 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 2012 (10) SCC 303 3/8

even in respect of non-compoundable 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 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. 2017 (9) SCC 641 4/8

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.

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 petitioner, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise.

2019 (5) SCC 688 5/8

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.

Accordingly, the impugned CC No.691 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioner 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 13.03.2026. The joint compromise memo dated 16.02.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order.

11.

The petitioner is directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 13.03.2026. 6/8

List the matter on 16.03.2026, for reporting compliance. 20.02.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Judge, Thirumangalam, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai, Crime No.291/2025.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3429 of 2026 Date : 20/02/2026 8/8