Vincent vs The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
1. Vincent S/o.Devasahayam,
2. Chellapandi S/o. Vincent,
3.Lazzermohan S/o.Pushparaj
Appellants/Accused 1 to 3
Vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Papanasam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.238/2010)
... Respondent/complainant
For Appellant(s):
Mr.S. Ananthamurugan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
Prayer:
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, to set
aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
alleged under Section 452, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC passed in S.C.No.65 of 2015
dated 22.12.2020 on the file of the learned Additional District and Session
Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellants for the offence alleged under Section 452, 326 and
506(ii) of IPC passed in S.C.No.65 of 2015 dated 22.12.2020 on the file of the
learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2020 at about 8:00 P.M.,
the de-facto complainant, his son, wife, and daughter were watching television
at their house at Manakkundu. Due to previous enmity, the accused A1 to A4
trespassed into the dwelling house of the de facto complainant and attacked the
son of the de facto complainant, Mr. Paul David Raj who is an auditory and
speech-impaired person, with an aruval and caused grievous injuries to him. All
the accused threatened the victim and others with dire consequences and
damaged household articles worth of Rs. 20,000/-.
3.All the four accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under
Sections 452, 326, and 506(ii) of IPC, and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. The case was taken on
file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, in P.R.C. No. 30 of 2014.
After following due process, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions
Judge, Thanjavur. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, for trial. During the course of
trial, A4 died, and the charge against him stood abated.
4.The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, exhibited 12 documents, and
produced 2 material objects. The defence examined no witness and marked no
document.
5.After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court
convicted A1 to A3 as follows:
Offences Conviction Period
452 of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period
of two years and each of them shall
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default
shall undergo SI for a period of six
months
326 of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period
of two years and each of them shall
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default,
shall undergo SI for a period of six
months.
506(ii) of IPC Sentenced to undergo RI for a period
of two years.
6.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, all the three
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
appellants, all the three convicted persons preferred this appeal.
7.When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for
the appellants informed this Court that the incident happened only due to a civil
dispute pending between the parties. Now, on the advice given by the members
of both families and village elders, the parties have entered into a compromise
and amicably settled all their disputes. It is further informed to this Court that
the de-facto complainant as well as the victim have voluntarily agreed to pray
for the acquittal of all the appellants.
8. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a joint
memo of compromise signed by appellants 1 to 3 and the de-facto complainant
and the victim. The parties who are present in person today before this Court
have also affirmed that they have settled all the issues amicably and prayed
before this Court for recording the compromise and to acquit the appellants of
all charges.
9. The joint compromise memo dated 11.11.2026 shall be read as part
thereof.
10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has
relied upon the Judgments passed by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022)14 SCC 531) invoked
Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings in two
criminal appeal Nos.1488 & 1489 of 2012 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where
the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective
of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed
against conviction. Further, he also relied upon the Judgments of this Court in
the cases of
(i) Anandhi Vs. The State Rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police ,
Naduveerapattu Police Station , (Crl. R.C. No.753 of 2023 dated 13.12.2023)
(ii) Muthupandi @ Muthu Swamy Vs. The State Rep by the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station, (Crl. R.C. (MD) No.277
of 2019 dated 29.09.2026).
(iii) Viswanathan Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police , Keeramangalam
Police Station , (Crl. R.C. (MD) No.801 of 2021, dated 23.03.2022) and
(iv) Chandra Vs. The Inspector of Police, Economic Wing No.II P.S.
(Crl. R.C. (MD) No.693 of 2016, dated 20.03.2023)
11.This Court has taken note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh , ((2022)14 SCC
531), and quashed criminal proceedings at the appellate stage.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
12.In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal and
another versus State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022)14 SCC 531) and the
judgments of this Hon'ble Court cited supra, and further, considering the fact
that the entire incident is actuated by a civil dispute, the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No.65 of 2015, dated 22.12.2020 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, is
hereby set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds
executed by them are discharged. The fine amount shall be refunded to the
appellants.
13.The criminal appeal is allowed on the above terms.
11.11.2026
Lbm
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To:
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
1. The Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai,
District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Aranthangi Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.
4. The Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Aranthangi.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Lbm
Crl.A(MD) No.21 of 2021
11-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:51:40 am )