CRL OP/33680/2025 of SACHIN Vs The State Inspector of Police

CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 Sachin S/o. Mayavel, Rep by its Mother M. Revathi, Meetu Street, Ambedhkar Nagar, Panruti, Cuddalore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Inspector of Police Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District. 2. Chitra W/o. Sundharamoorthy, Ambedhkar Nagar, Panruti, Cuddalore District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 to call for records about the FIR bearing Crime No.663/2024 on the file of the Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): J.Karthik Eswaran For Respondent(s): Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 9 ORDER The petitioner/accused in crime No.663 of 2024 for offences under Sections 296 (b), 324(4), 351(2), 329(4) BNS, had filed this quash petition. 2.The fact of the complaint is that on 23.11.2025 at about 9.00p.m. when the defacto complainant’s aunt namely Nagammal aged about 70 years was alone at home, the petitioner along with four others came and enquired about Gowtham, her grandson. She informed them that she was not aware of his whereabouts. Thereupon, they abused and threatened her. Hence, a complaint has been lodged. 3.The l earned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that it is a case and counter case and that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, a memo of compromise entered into between them, which is scanned and extracted hereunder: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 9 4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 6.The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S.Senthilkumar, HC 205, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District. 7.On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 8.The 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 offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page7 of 9 9.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 petitioner. 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. 10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant 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 proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.663 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page8 of 9 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.663 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. 12.The affidavit s and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 10-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sms To 1. The State Inspector of Police Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District. 2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 __________ Page9 of 9 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. sms CRL OP No. 33680 of 2025 10-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis