Muniyasamy v. The State Of Tamillnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 29.10.2025 Pronounced on 04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Muniyasamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.194 of 2016) 2.Late S.Anburaj 3.Sabarinadhan ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.194 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires. For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Sundara Pandian For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R3 : Mr.S.Sanakkiyan Page No. 1 of 8
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.194 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police, registered against the petitioner/A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The second respondent/defacto complainant, who is no more, and the third respondent/victim are brothers. The second respondent and the third respondent are the cousin brothers of the petitioner. The allegation in the FIR is that the third respondent herein had an illicit affair with the petitioner's wife; and that, enraged by the said conduct, the petitioner, his mother, and others attacked the third respondent herein with a knife and caused stab injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise. He further submitted that, even though the offence under Section 307 IPC has been alleged against the petitioner, considering the nature of the relationship between the parties, the motive for the alleged occurrence, and the fact that the victim/third respondent Page No. 2 of 8
himself does not wish to pursue the case, the impugned FIR may be quashed. He also submitted that the second respondent/defacto complainant, who had lodged the complaint and was an eyewitness, is no more; that the second respondent/defacto complainant is not the injured person; and that the victim, the third respondent herein, who is the injured person, has signed the joint memo of compromise dated 07.10.2024. The memo of compromise reads as follows:
Page No. 3 of 8
Page No. 4 of 8
4. The petitioner, namely, Muniyasamy [Aadhaar No.6158 2469 2553], and the third respondent/victim, namely, Sabarinathan [Aadhaar No. 5433 3637 1627], appeared before this Court in person on 29.10.2025, when the case was reserved for orders. Admittedly, the second respondent/defacto complainant, who is none other than the brother of the third respondent/victim, is no more. The parties were identified by Mr.R.Muniyandi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram. All the parties have confirmed the compromise arrived at between them. The third respondent/victim has confirmed the compromise and stated that he does not wish to pursue the case against all the accused.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in several cases that an offence under Section 307 of the IPC cannot ordinarily be quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, as it is a heinous crime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exceptional circumstances, the inherent powers of the High Courts can be invoked to quash the proceedings considering the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has also to determine whether it would be unfair or Page No. 5 of 8
contrary to the interests of justice to continue the criminal proceedings, and whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.
6. In the present case, the parties are closely related to each other. The motive for the alleged occurrence is that the third respondent/victim had an affair with the petitioner's wife. The occurrence appears to have taken place in a fight. Though the victim has suffered stab injuries, the intention of the petitioner to commit murder cannot be inferred.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the First Information Report (FIR) pending investigation, and accordingly accepts the compromise. The impugned First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.194 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram District, and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance before the Registry. Page No. 6 of 8
8. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 04.11.2025 JEN Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Copy To:
1.The Director, The District Legal Service Authority, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 7 of 8
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
JEN Pre-Delivery Order made in 04.11.2025 Page No. 8 of 8