logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 227 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. O.P. No. 34143 of 2025 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 23904 & 23905 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Parties : Balamurugan & Another Versus The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, S3, Meenambakkam Police Station, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A.P. Sathyamurthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, A. Kripakaran for D. Prabu, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 02-01-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Sections 323 and 354 IPC

2. Catch Words:
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offences
- quash
- criminal proceedings
- public interest
- jurisdiction
- costs

3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash C.C. No.138 of 2025, which arose from a police report on offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC. Both parties claimed an amicable settlement and requested the final report be quashed. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the seriousness of the offences might preclude quashing. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in *Parbathbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat*, the Court examined whether the offences were individual or against society. Finding the offences purely personal with no overriding public interest, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the final report, subject to a modest cost order. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.138 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur and quash the same.)

1. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash C.C.No.138 of 2025, pending against the petitioners, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No. 18 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and upon completion of the investigation, the respondent police have filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.138 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the final report as against the petitioners. Affidavits to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S.Elango, SI, S3 Meenambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

6. On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

8. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

9. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the final report in C.C. No.138 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of and the final report in C.C. No.138 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur, is quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11. The affidavits filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

 
  CDJLawJournal