(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned CC No.942 of 2023 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Trichy and Quash the same as illegal.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No. 942 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to the dispute regarding a flex board, which had been put up by the de facto complainant, obstructing the shop of the accused, the petitioners / accused herein allegedly criminally intimidated and attacked the de facto complainant. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.783 of 2023 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 323 of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in Sessions CC No. 942 of 2023 before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 325 of IPC. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are residing in the same locality, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 07.01.2026 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.P.Nagarajan, SSI, Fort Police Station, Trichy City. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he 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 petitioner, 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. Accordingly, the impugned CC No. 942 of 2023 before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy is quashed in entirety and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall jointly pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the defacto complainant / second respondent, by drawing demand draft, in his name, within one week from today. The joint compromise memo dated 07.01.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11. The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 29.01.2025. List the matter on 29.01.2026, for reporting compliance.