Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23887/2026 of Tharamaraja @ Dharmaraja Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 16 October 2026
CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011475112026}
1. Tharamaraja @ Dharmaraja
2. Illayaraja
3. Mononithyan
4. Periyakaruppan
5. Balu @ Balasubramaniam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivagangai Town Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.782 of 2017)
2. Ramanathan
S/o.Kalimuthu,
Samiyarpatti,
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section FIR Quash the Petitioners most respectfully pray that this Court may be pleased to call for the entire records connected with FIR in Crime No.782 of 2017 dated 28.09.2017
on the file of the Respondent Police and quash the same as illegal as against the Petitioners.
CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
M/s Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
Mr.S.Mohammed Yunish Raja for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in Crime No.782 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the FIR wherein they are charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC.
2. Perusal of the records reveals that the petitioners herein and the defacto complainant belong to the same village and that there was a property dispute between them, during which the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant. There was no injuries caused to the defacto complainant with the intention of committing murder. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out in accordance with law.
3. Pending investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise wherein the defacto complainant had agreed for quashing of the FIR.
CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026
4. Today, the defacto complainant is present in-person and he acknowledges the fact that he had agreed for quashing of the F.I.R.
5. Considering the above said facts, F.I.R. in Crime No.782 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. 16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DSS To
1. The Inspector Of Police, Sivagangai Town Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. DSS CRL OP(MD) No. 23887 of 2026 16-10-2026