CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 Dilipkumar S/o. Selvaraj, No.22/62, Gandhi Street, Gangaiamman Kovil Street, Kamarajapuram, Velachery, Chennai-600 012. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State Rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police J3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai-600 032. 2. Pakkiammal W/o. Bose, No.15/2, Gandhi Street, Kamarajapuram, Velachery, Chennai-600 042. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.861 of 2025 on the file of the IX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balaji Sankara Moorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER The parties are seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.861 of 2025 on the file of the learned IX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 435, 506(ii) r/w.149 of IPC on the ground of compromise with reference to the petitioner/Accused No.7 alone. 2. Upon reading the complaints given, the defacto complainant has reported that he is doing business of supplying potable drinking water. When she is distributing the same through her driver, her driver is threatened repeatedly by all the accused. On an earlier occasion including this petitioner/Accused No.7 threatened both in person and also telephonically. On the day of occurrence , the other accused namely, A2 to A6 alone had thrown petrol bombs in front of her house and she had to douse the fire and report the matter to the police. Before the Court, the de-facto complainant submits that this petitioner / Accused No.7 was not there in the occurrence and earlier she had even though mentioned his name, this petitioner is not involved in the offence and therefore, realising the same, she has now requesting this Court to compromise the case. 3. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the de- facto complainant itself would submits that the petitioner/A7 alone is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 involved in the said offence and even as per the final report, it was stated that A1 to A6 alone threw the bottles containing petrol bombs in front of her house, I am of the view that as far as A7 alone is concerned, the matter can be permitted to be quashed on compromise. 4. In view thereof, since the parties have ironed out the difference and considering the allegations and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303], I am of the view that compromise can be permitted with reference to the petitioner/Accused No.7 alone. Accordingly, this Crl.O.P.No.21970 of 2026 stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.861 of 2025 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai shall stands quashed inasmuch as the petitioner /Accused No.7 is concerned. 07-08-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No DP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To 1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, J3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai-600 032. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. DP CRL OP No. 21970 of 2026 07-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis