Akash @ Akash Kumar v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Poice,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI 1.Akash @ Akash Kumar 2.Ananth 3.Bala @ Balamurugan 4.P.Arun ... Petitioners/Accused No.1to 3 & 5 Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathi Sub Division, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.
2. State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Inspector of Police, Namana Samuthiram Police Station, Pudukottai District.
... 1st Respondent/Complainant (In Crime No. 120 of 2024)
3. Jei Kumar ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
2. Manikumar ... 3rd Respondent/ Victim PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records of impugned Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C. No. 58 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners. 1/8
For Petitioners : Mr. A.Abdulkabur For Respondents : Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar (R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr. P.Prabakaran (R2)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, the accused persons abused the defacto complainant and the victim in filthy language also by using caste related words, attacked them with stone and also criminally intimidated them. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.120 of 2024 was registered on the file of the second respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 115(2) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, and 2/8
the same culminated in laying final report in Spl.SC.No.58 of 2024 before the file of the Special Court for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) & 296(b) of BNS, 2023 & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.
3.
Admittedly, the petitioners, the second respondent and the third respondent are known to each other, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 05.12.2025 has been filed before this Court.
4.
The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant and the third respondent / victim are present before this Court in person and are identified by the Police Official of Namana Samudram Police Station, Pudukkottai District. The defacto complainant and the victim have categorically stated that they do 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. 3/8
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 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 2012 (10) SCC 303 2017 (9) SCC 641 4/8
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.
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. 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.
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 Spl.S.C. No. 58 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, 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.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the credit of the District Legal Services Authority, Pudukkottai District, on or before 13.03.2026. The joint compromise memo dated 05.12.2025 shall form part and parcel of this order. AIR 2017 SC 2595 6/8
12.
The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 13.03.2026. List the matter on 16.03.2026, for reporting compliance. 23.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Sm 7/8
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sm TO:-
1. The Special Court for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai,
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathi Sub Division, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Namana Samuthiram Police Station, Pudukottai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in Dated 23.01.2026 8/8