Natarajan v. The State Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P. No. 10775 of 2026 1.

Natarajan 2.

Rahul ..Petitioners Vs.

1.

The State, rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 350 of 2024).

2.

Chokkammal ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 347 of 2025 pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Walajapet (arising out of Crime No. 350 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent Police). For Petitioners ::

Mr.J. Venkatesan For Respondents ::

Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.M. Balaji for R2 1\8

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition is filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 347 of 2025 pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Walajapet. 2.

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the petitioners are close relatives, in that, the 2nd respondent is the sister of the 1st petitioner and aunt of the 2nd petitioner and the cause for the complaint is dispute over family properties. Based on the complaint lodged, a case in Crime No. 350 of 2024 came be to be registered by the 1st respondent Police for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. On completion of investigation, final report was filed listing 8 witnesses and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 347 of 2025 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of property dispute between family members and that on the advice of elders and wellwishers, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. 2\8

Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed. 4.

Learned Government Counsel ( Criminal Side) would submit that it is a matter of case and counter and the parties are closely related to each other.

5.

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.M. Sathanandam, HC 251, Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District. 6.

On interaction 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.

The Joint Memo of compromise dated 30.01.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below:

3\8

4\8

5\8

8.

The Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) 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.

9.

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 6\8

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 petitioners and the 2nd 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 petitioners in C.C.No.347 of 2025 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.347 of 2025 pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet, is quashed as against the petitioners.

7\8

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv

12. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

05.06.2026 nv 1/2 To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajpet.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P. No. 10775 of 2026 8\8