Vinoth v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case is filed as against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mayiladuthurai, in C.C.No.116 of 2022, finding the petitioners guilty of the offences under Sections 294 (b), 354 and 355 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and to pay the fine of Rs.500/- each by the petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 294 (b) and six months Simple Imprisonment under Section 355 of IPC.

¶2Upon an appeal being filed in Crl.A.No.17 of 2023, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mayiladuthurai, was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, vide its Judgment dated

16.10.2024.

¶3Apart from arguing the case on merits, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the parties were relatives and they have ironed out the differences, the matter was referred before the Special Lok Adalat conducted on 18.07.2026. Before the Lok Adalat, the defacto complainant was present and had submitted before the learned Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat (the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Lakshminarayanan) that they have already resolved their issues and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Recording the compromise reached between the parties, the matter is posted before this Court.

¶4The broad contours of law relating to the exercise of power by this Court with reference to compromise has been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs-State of Punjab and Another1 and other subsequent judgments.

¶5A perusal of the facts of this case, it can be seen that there was a wordy quarrel between the parties who are the relatives, suddenly that arose the incident and the case came to be registered, as such it can be seen that it is a private in nature. Even though it is post conviction, considering the extraordinary and peculiar nature of the case and prima facie finding that even the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC, it can be seen that the words were spoken in anger and frustration rather than with obscene intention. With reference to the offences 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 under Section 354 and 355 of IPC, the intention to commit such offences are questionable, considering the sudden quarrel that erected and primarily considering the submission made by the defacto complainant before the Lok Adalat and now before this Court that the proceedings need not be proceeded further, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed on the following terms:-

(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners vide the Judgment dated 16.10.2024 in Crl.A.No.17 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mayiladuthurai, in C.C.No.116 of 2022 dated 31.08.2023 stand set aside and the entire proceedings out of Crime No.75 of 2021 shall be deemed to be quashed on compromise.

24.07.2026 : Yes/No Jer To

¶1The District Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Mayiladuthurai.

¶3The Inspector of Police Kuthalam. (C.C.No.116 of 2022)

¶4The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Jer

24.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1.Vinoth S/o Sami Selvam 2.Vasanth S/o Sami Selvam 3.Balaji S/o Ramamoorthi … Petitioners Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Kuthalam. (C.C.No.116 of 2022) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.A.No.17 of 2023 dated 16.10.2024 confirming the order of Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Mayiladuthurai in C.C.No.116 of 2022 dated 31.08.2023 and allow the criminal revision petition. For the Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkatachalam For the Respondent : Mr.R.Rajasekaran Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side)