Manikandan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Manamadurai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI 1.Manikandan 2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners/A1 & A3 Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.676 of 2020) ... 1st respondent / Complainant 2.Vasantha ... 2nd respondent / de-facto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in proceeding in C.C.No.163 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, in connection with the Crime No.676 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.K.K.Samy For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Veera Pandi Selvaraj 1/7
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.163 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. On 30.10.2020, at about 4.00 p.m., the de-facto complainant was constructing a house after demolishing the earlier structure. During the course of construction, the petitioners attacked the de-facto complainant and abused her in filthy language, which resulted in the filing of a complaint in Crime No.676 of 2020 before the 1st respondent police. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter was taken on file as C.C.No.163 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), and 323 of the IPC r/w. Section 4 of the TNPHW Act.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are residing in the same locality and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 13.11.2025 has been filed before this Court. 2/7
4. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.B.Pandiammal, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. The de-facto complainant has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners. 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 Cr.P.C 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. 2012 10 SCC 303 3/7
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.
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 4/7
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 no offence is made out against any 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 filed in C.C.No.163 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai, is quashed insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, and the Criminal AIR 2017 SC 2595 5/7
Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 13.11.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order. 05.12.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No mkn 6/7
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
mkn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
05.12.2025 7/7