Deepak @ Beedi v. The State Represented by

ORDER The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.58 of 2026 dated 19.03.2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the B.N.S, 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police, has filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

¶2The case of the petitioners is that on 19.03.2026, at about 9.30 P.M, when the second respondent, along with his friends, went to a wine shop at Jones Road and proceeded to Thadirathinam street, the petitioners allegedly questioned them for causing disturbance to the public. Subsequently, while the second respondent and his friends were proceeding via Subramania Salai, the petitioners again intercepted them, which led to a wordy altercation. Thereafter, both parties allegedly attacked each other, resulting in injuries to both the parties. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.58 of 2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the B.N.S, 2023 against the petitioners.

¶3The case is at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶4Today, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mr.Anandh, Sub-Inspector attached to the first respondent Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The second respondent informed that due to misunderstanding and difference of opinion, the occurrence has happened and the dispute was purely personal in nature and now they are not willing to further proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect. The petitioners and the second respondent have filed separate affidavit before this Court.

¶5Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 - (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in

(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the F.I.R.

¶6This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.58 of 2026 dated 19.03.2026 on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioners.

12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. grs

12.06.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1. Deepak 2. Ajithkumar 3. Deepak .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State represented by, Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.58 of 2026 2. Surya @ Suriya .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for records related to the case in Crime No.58 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same, as against the petitioners/accused. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Krishnakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Mr.M.Praveenkumar, for R2