(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the entire records regarding to the impugned charge sheet in CC No.753 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No.753 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that this is a case of job racketing. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.87 of 2023 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 & 506(1) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in Sessions CC No.753 of 2025 before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, for the offences under Sections 420, 506(1) & 120B of IPC. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are known to each other. Since the defacto complainant died interstate, the legal heirs of the defacto complainant are before this Court. The parties have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 25.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the legal heirs of the defacto complainant / respondents 2 to 4 are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.Eswaran, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District. They have categorically stated that they does 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.

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(2012 (10) SCC 303), 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 Gujarat(2017 (9) SCC 641), 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(2019 (5) SCC 688), 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 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. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No.87 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. In view of the same, the respondents 2 to 4, being the legal heirs of the defacto complainant, are directed to file an appropriate application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, for withdrawal/receipt of the said amount, in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, the impugned final report in CC No.753 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 25.02.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.