Ahamed Fayas v. The State of Tamilnadu

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in CC No. 1299/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Addl Mahila Court, Madurai and to quash the same.

¶2The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked her. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.52 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in C.C.No.1299 of 2025 before the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, for the offences under Sections under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

¶3Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent are residing in the same locality, and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 06.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

¶4The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.P.Kalyani, WSSI, AWPS Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

¶5The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings 2012 (10) SCC 303 even in respect of non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

¶6The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat2, wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

¶7In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan3, the 2017 (9) SCC 641 2019 (5) SCC 688 Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the proceedings, and the overall impact on society and must satisfy itself that the settlement is voluntary and not the result of coercion or undue influence.

¶8Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties, the conduct of the petitioners, the stage of the proceedings, and the voluntary nature of the compromise.

¶9The dispute in question is predominantly private in character and does not involve any offence having serious or grave impact on society at large. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possibility of conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

¶10Accordingly, the impugned final report in CC No.1299/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Addl Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Each petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for establishing an E-Library to the credit of the MBHAA, in Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Branch, Account No.496038755 IFSC No.IDIB000H040, MICR Code: 625019020, on or before

27.02.2026. The joint compromise memo dated 06.02.2026 shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶11The petitioners are directed to file a memo along with the photocopy of the receipt before the Registry on or before 27.02.2026. List the matter on 06.03.2026, for reporting compliance.

13.02.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Addl Mahila Court, Madurai

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City. In Crime No.52/2024..

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.3017 of 2026 Date : 13/02/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 13/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI 1. Ahamed Fayas, 2. Rijwana ... Petitioners Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City. In Crime No.52/2024. 2. Afiyathul Vasima ... Respondents PRAYER :- To call for the records in connection with Charge Sheet in CC No. 1299/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Addl Mahila Court, Madurai and to quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Yasar Arafath K, Advocate. For Respondent : M/s.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) R2 : M/s.D.S.Haroon Rasheed