CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 Neelakandan S/o. Mahenderan No.1/112, North Street, Therbogi, Ramanathapuram-623522 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State rep by the Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District. 2. Praveen Kumar S/o. Thiyagarajan, D.No.1/269, Thangappapuram, Kattorani Post, Ramanathapuram District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2023 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner on the ground of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent by allowing this Criminal Original Petition. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER 1. This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District for alleged offences under Sections 387 of I.P.C. on the ground of compromise between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further. 2. The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments. 3. The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioner herein and the de facto complainant are friends. While so, it is submitted by the de facto complainant, when there was a birthday celebration, there were several friends and 3 accused have also came there and threatened the de facto complainant at knife point and taken away money and also the phone and the other articles. Hence, this case. As far as the present petitioner before this court is concerned, he is said to be the friend of the de facto complainant, who was present in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 scene as a person taking part in the birthday party and has got no track with the others. It is submitted that mistakenly his name is also included as an accused. The de facto complainant submitted that he has ironed out his differences, if any with this petitioner alone is considerd and he does not want to proceed with the case as against the petitioner. 4. Thus, it can be seen that this matter is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise. 5. Since it is agreed by the de facto complainant that this petitioner did not commit the offence, but he was wrongly included along with the other persons and that they have ironed out their differences between them, I am of the view that as against the petitioner alone the case can be considered and accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No.19624 of 2026 stands allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 282 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District stands quashed as against this petitioner alone. 23-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To 1. Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J. RPP CRL OP No. 19624 of 2026 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis