logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 990 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. O.P. No. 1496 of 2026 & Crl. M.P. No. 929 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Parties : Ammu @ Mageshwari & Others Versus State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: V. Pavel, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, E. Saraswathi, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 02-02-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of FIR in Crime No.411 of 2025 and quash the FIR in Crime No.411 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.)

1. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.411 of 2025, pending against the petitioners, on the file of the first respondent Police, 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, the aforesaid case in Crime No. 411 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 126(2), 294(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

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 First Information Report as against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise 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.K.Stephen, SI, P1 Pulianthope Police Station (L & O), 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 have entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences 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 noncompoundable 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 cases, 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 First Information Report in Crime No.411 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The First Information Report in Crime No.411 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police is quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners 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.

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