CRL A(MD)/21/2021 of Vincent Vs The Inspector of Police on 11 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence alleged under Section 452, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC passed in S.C.No.65 of 2015 dated 22.12.2020 on the file of the learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2020 at about 8:00 P.M., the de-facto complainant, his son, wife, and daughter were watching television at their house at Manakkundu. Due to previous enmity, the accused A1 to A4 trespassed into the dwelling house of the de facto complainant and attacked the son of the de facto complainant, Mr. Paul David Raj who is an auditory and speech-impaired person, with an aruval and caused grievous injuries to him. All the accused threatened the victim and others with dire consequences and damaged household articles worth of Rs. 20,000/-.

3. All the four accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, and 506(ii) of IPC, and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu

Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, in P.R.C. No. 30 of 2014. After following due process, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, for trial. During the course of trial, A4 died, and the charge against him stood abated.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, exhibited 12 documents, and produced 2 material objects. The defence examined no witness and marked no document.

5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted A1 to A3 as follows: Offences Conviction Period 452 of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default shall undergo SI for a period of six months 326 of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, shall undergo SI for a period of six months. 506(ii) of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, all the three appellants, all the three convicted persons preferred this appeal.

7. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants informed this Court that the incident happened only due to a civil dispute pending between the parties. Now, on the advice given by the members of both families and village elders, the parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled all their disputes. It is further informed to this Court that the de-facto complainant as well as the victim have voluntarily agreed to pray for the acquittal of all the appellants.

8. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a joint memo of compromise signed by appellants 1 to 3 and the de-facto complainant and the victim. The parties who are present in person today before this Court have also affirmed that they have settled all the issues amicably and prayed before this Court for recording the compromise and to acquit the appellants of all charges.

9. The joint compromise memo dated 11.11.2026 shall be read as part thereof.

10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Judgments passed by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022)14 SCC 531) invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings in two criminal appeal Nos.1488 & 1489 of 2012 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Further, he also relied upon the Judgments of this Court in the cases of

(i) Anandhi Vs. The State Rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Naduveerapattu Police Station, (Crl. R.C. No.753 of 2023 dated 13.12.2023)

(ii) Muthupandi @ Muthu Swamy Vs. The State Rep by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station, (Crl. R.C. (MD) No.277 of 2019 dated 29.09.2026).

(iii) Viswanathan Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station, (Crl. R.C. (MD) No.801 of 2021, dated 23.03.2022) and

(iv) Chandra Vs. The Inspector of Police, Economic Wing No.II P.S. (Crl. R.C. (MD) No.693 of 2016, dated 20.03.2023)

11. This Court has taken note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ((2022)14 SCC 531), and quashed criminal proceedings at the appellate stage.

12. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022)14 SCC 531) and the judgments of this Hon'ble Court cited supra, and further, considering the fact that the entire incident is actuated by a civil dispute, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No.65 of 2015, dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds executed by them are discharged. The fine amount shall be refunded to the appellants.

13. The criminal appeal is allowed on the above terms. 11.11.2026 Lbm Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:

1. The Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai, District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

4. The Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Aranthangi.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

D.LINGESWARAN, J. Lbm Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021 11-11-2026