| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 1344
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : CRL OP(MD). No. 102 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI |
| Parties : Sardhar Versus State rep., by, The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Susikumar, Advocate, For the Respondents: R1, B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (crl.side), R2, R. Maheshwaran, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 09-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
BNSS, 2023 - Section 528 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 528 BNSS, 2023
- Section 482 CrPC
2. Catch Words:
- Quashment
- Compromise
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Non‑compoundable offence
- Criminal proceedings
3. Summary:
The petition under Section 528 BNSS seeks to quash FIR 288/2022 and the proceeding PRC No. 61/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, on the ground of a family compromise. The parties, who are close relatives, have resolved the dispute amicably and submitted a Joint Compromise Memo dated Jan‑2026. The Court examined precedents such as Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and Lovely Salhotra, emphasizing that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised where the dispute is private and the offence is not of serious societal impact. Finding the offence to be a private family matter and the compromise voluntary, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 to the victim and compliance with the compromise memo.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.61 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, and quash the same against the petitioners concerned.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.61 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous dispute, on 25.05.2022 at about 09.15 pm., the petitioners 1 to 3 knocked the door of the defacto complainant's house and took the defacto complainant for a compromise talk and suddenly, assaulted him using knife. Hence, an FIR in Crime No.288 of 2022 came to be registered against the petitioners.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are close relatives, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated Jan-2026 has been filed before this Court.
4. The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.Arumugam, SSI, Dindigul Taluk Police Station. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR 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 Punjab, 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 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 Gujarat, 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 Narayan, 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.
9. The dispute in question is predominantly family dispute 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 Vs., State (NCT of Delhi) and another (AIR 2017 SC 2959), 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 proceedings in P.R.C.No.61 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall together take demand draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the victim on or before 09.02.2026. The joint compromise memo dated Jan-2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.
12. The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the demand draft before the Registry on or before 09.02.2026. List the matter on 09.02.2026 for reporting complsiance.
|
| |
