CRL OP(MD)/23940/2026 of Dhilipkumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Keeraithurai on 11 November 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by A1 to A9 in S.C.No.957 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein, the petitioners are charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 506(2), 120B, 212 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.

2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the accused persons are said to have attacked the defacto complainant due to certain misunderstanding and differences that had arisen between the defacto complainant and the accused persons. Pending Trial, the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein, the defacto complainant has agreed for quashing of the charge sheet, as all of them belong to the same locality.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the prosecution raised objections for recording of the compromise and filed a counter affidavit contending that the accused persons are having many previous cases. The antecedents and the conduct of the accused persons and the circumstances in which the incident has taken place are also to be 1 For brevity, hereinafter referred as “IPC”.

taken into consideration. He would further submit that they have planned the attack over the defacto complainant and used deadly weapons, in a residential area, causing grievous injuries and therefore, objected recording of the compromise.

4. I have perused the allegations in the charge sheet. The Section 164 (Cr.P.C.) Statement of the Doctor who had treated the defacto complainant reflects that the complainant sustained grievous injuries. Injuries have been sustained by the defacto complainant in his hand and there is no injury on the vital part of the petitioners herein to cause the death of the defacto complainant. In such circumstances, invoking Section 307 of the IPC is not legally sustainable.

5. Pending Trial, the parties have entered into a compromise. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the joint compromise memo are extracted as follows: “It is most respectfully submitted that the alleged case of the prosecution, is that in connection with an earlier incident relating to the death of one Bala, certain misunderstandings and differences had arisen between the defacto complainant and the accused persons. It is alleged that on 21.01.2024 at about 8:40 p.m., when the defacto complainant was proceeding towards his residence at Kamarajapuram North Street, Madurai, the accused persons are stated to have followed him and an argument aroused near his residence. During the said occurrence, it is alleged that some of the accused persons were in possession of weapons and that the defacto complainant sustained injuries in the course of the incident. It is further alleged that the other accused persons were present at or near the place of occurrence and had either accompanied the principal accused, watched the movements of the defacto complainant, or assisted the accused persons in leaving the place of occurrence. It is also alleged that certain words of threat were uttered during the incident. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered the case and, after investigation, filed the final report alleging commission of offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC, and against the 9th accused under Section 212 read with Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. Hence the de-facto complainant lodged the case as against the petitioners and the same was registered by the 1st Respondent Police in Crime No. 31 of 2024.

3. It is most respectfully submitted that the 1st petitioner is presently confined at the Central Prison, Madurai. I further submit that during the pendency of the above case, since the petitioner and the De-facto complainant belong to the same locality, they have entered into compromise and they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, no further issue is existed between the petitioners and the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent does not want to proceed with the above-mentioned criminal case as against the petitioner. Therefore, it is just and necessary to quash the impugned Charge sheet in SC.No. 957 of 2025 on the file of the Learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.”

6. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compromise be recorded, considering the fact that the petitioners belong to the same locality and have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any coercion or threat. Considering all these circumstances, the charge sheet in S.C.No.957 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, stands quashed.

7. The present petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No drm To

1. Inspector Of Police Keeraithurai Police Station, Madurai City.

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

3. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR J. drm CRL.O.P.(MD) No.23940 of 2026 11-11-2026