M.Noor Ali v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M.Noor Ali W/o.Muneer Ali, No.6, Sivaguru Street, Muthurangam Flat, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai - 600 083.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, J-6 Police Station, Thiruvanmaiyur, Adyar District.

(Crime No.378 of 2025)

2. D.Muneer Ali S/o.Dadamiyan, No.6, Sivaguru street, Muthurangam flat, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai - 600 083.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in FIR Crime No.378 of 2025 pending before the J-6 Thiruvanmaiyur Police Station in entirely and pass such or further orders as this honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.O.Jayapranam for Mr.K.Arunprasad For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in crime No.378 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioner is that the defacto complaint runs a mutton shop in Adyar, Chennai. He has two wives. He married the first wife Noori Ali in the year 1999 and is residing at Jafferkhanpet. Further, he married his second wife Ayesha on 31.11.2014 and is residing a separate family with her at Injambakkam. On 31.08.2025 (Sunday), there was heavy crowd in his shop. Hence, his first wife Noori Ali came to assist his as usual. At about 7.30 p.m., she questioned him for having purchased a two-wheeler for the son of his second wife Ayesha Beevi. She picked up a quarrel and objected to his visiting the house of second wife. During the quarrel, she abused in filthy language and took a knife available in the shop and stabbed him on his stomach. Hence, lodged a complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife and it is a family dispute. Now, at the intervention of their relatives, friends, both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have been resolved amicably a compromise was arrived between the parties. In respect of the same, they filed Joint Memo of Compromise, which scanned and reproduced hereunder:

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife and it is a family dispute. In this case, the respondent police filed final report before 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet through E.filing No.LTN 20230002474C202500221, which is yet to be taken on file. He further 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.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.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.

7.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.U.Esaikkidurai, J-6, Police Station, Thiruvanmaiyur.

8.On interaction by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 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 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.

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 in crime No.378 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.

11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.378 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed.

12.The affidavit 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.

05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms To

1. The Inspector of Police, J-6 Police Station, Thiruvanmaiyur, Adyar District.

(Crime No.378 of 2025).

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms 05-06-2026