Immanuvel v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Samayapuram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21435 of 2025 Immanuvel ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy.
Crime No.449 of 2025 ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Arumugam ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code/Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for records pertaining to the FIR filed in Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of the Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy for the alleged offences U/s.281, 296(b), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w section 4 (1) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, 279, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and quash the same as illegal and violative.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Manivasagam For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : M/s.J.Kalyani 1/5
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of the Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy, which was filed for the offences under Section 281, 296(b), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w section 4 (1) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.
2. The allegation in the impugned FIR is that on 01.10.2025 at about 5.45 p.m., the petitioner had, in an inebriated manner, ridden the auto bearing registration No.TN 48 BF 5727 in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the defacto complainant's two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 48 BH 0925 and caused damage to the vehicle and mobile phone of the defacto complainant; that when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner scolded him in filthy language and threatened him of dire consequences and thus committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent have now entered into a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 25.11.2025. 2/5
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the defacto complainant had received the money from the petitioner for the alleged damage caused to the vehicle and mobile phone of the defacto complainant; that though the petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, he was not subjected to the medical examination.
5. The petitioner and the second respondent, namely, Arumugam (Aadhar No.7062 6255 4217) are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.K.Kathiravan, Head Constable, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.
6. In view of the same and considering the nature of the offences and the relationship between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation. Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of the Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 25.11.2025 shall form part of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority 3/5
attached to this Bench forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.
28.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu To 1.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Indu Crl.O.P(MD).No.21435 of 2025 28.11.2025 5/5