Karthikeyan Sekar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Karthikeyan Sekar, S/o.Sekar, No.32, Egambaram Nagar, Kuminipettai, Balakrishnapuram, Ranipet District.

TN-631003.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep by Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.12 of 2026)

2. Mrs.Lakshmi Suresh W/o.Suresh, 368, Ellaiyamman Kovil Street, Kumpinipet, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore - 631002.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER:

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to Cr.No.12/2026 pending on the file of Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet and quash the same on compromise.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.S.Aswini For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh, GA for R1 Ms. A.Barkavi for R2 Order The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to Cr.No.12/2026 pending on the file of Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet and quash the same on the ground of compromise. 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.12 of 2026 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the accused, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and and 351(3) of IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing for both the petitioner and the de facto

complainant submitted that the de facto complainant is a goat herder and the petitioner is the neighbour of the de facto complainant. While so, the goats of the de facto complainant went into the house of the petitioner and damaged his compound wall, due to which the petitioner abused the de facto complainant and picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant and her husband resulting in the de facto complainant sustaining an injury. They further submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the aforesaid case as against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective learned counsel as well as by the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet. 6.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she 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.

7.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent police submitted that though the parties have

entered into a compromise while this case is pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether the 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 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 noncompoundable 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 petitioner 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 proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.12 of 2026, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2026, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet, is quashed as against the petitioner.

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

16-02-2026 DN

To The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

Crime No.12 of 2026

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.

DN 16-02-2026