J.Caleb Manoah v. State Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR AND CRL MP NO. 4864 OF 2026, CRL MP NO. 4865 OF 2026 J.Caleb Manoah ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State rep. by, The Circle Inspector of Police (Railways), Railway Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Egmore Railway Police Circle, Egmore, Chennai-600008.
2. Rohit Kumar ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for records relating to in CC.No.1068 of 2023 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Mohammed Raji for Mr.M.I.Javid Akbar For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.S.Kolandasamy for R2
ORDER
The petitioner/A1, who is facing trial in C.C.No.1068 of 2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 352, 506(ii), 109 r/w. 34 IPC, has filed the present quash petition.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a small fight between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant during a College function. Later, this petitioner left the issue at that stage itself. However, the petitioner's friends, offended by the incident, three days thereafter, on 06.02.2023, along with other friends, picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant during a train journey and had a fight and assaulted the de facto complainant. Therefore, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint as against the petitioner (A1) and his friends (A2 to A6). Based on the same, a case in Crime No.12 of 2023 came to be registered as against the petitioner (A1) and others.
After investigation, the 1st respondent Police had filed a final report as against the petitioner (A1) and 5 others (A2 to A6) for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 352, 506(ii), 109 r/w. 34 IPC, which was taken on file in C.C.No.1068 of 2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai. To quash the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by A1.
3.During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner left the issue immediately after the quarrel that arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, on the presumption that, at the instance of the petitioner, the attack had happened during his train journey, the de facto complainant has implicated the petitioner in this case. He further submitted that, during the occurrence, the petitioner was not present in the train nor anywhere in and around the Railway Station. He further submits that, now the parties have come forward to settle the matter and buy peace. Hence, he prays for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. 5.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant is now willing to settle the issues amicably and compound the offences.
Since all the accused persons and the de facto complainant were College students at that time and in a fit of rage at that age, there was a wordy quarrel which ended in scuffle, the de facto complainant has no objection to quash the FIR not only as against the petitioner (A1) but also other accused persons.
petitioner (A1) has given a counter complaint as against the de facto complaint, which was registered as Crime No.42 of 2023 by the J-13 Tharamani Police Station on 25.02.2023. But, later, the case was closed as "mistake of fact". However, thereafter, based on the protest petition filed by the petitioner, it was reopened by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, by order dated 15.12.2023 in R.C.S.No.2 of 2023, and the learned Magistrate has ordered the Assistant Commissioner of Police to monitor the investigation and file a report within 60 days.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the compromise, the petitioner herein, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.42 of 2023, is not willing to proceed against the 2nd respondent herein and he has no objection to quash the same.
7.Accordingly, the parties have filed a joint memo of compromise, dated 18.06.2026, signed by both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in the presence of their respective counsel, stating that the parties, upon their free will and accord, have settled the matter amicably and the 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the case in C.C.No.1068 of 2023 pending against this petitioner and other accused; and the petitioner has no objection to quash the FIR in Crime No.42 of 2023 pending against the 2nd respondent herein. The joint compromise memo, is scanned and reproduced hereunder :
8.Today, the petitioner (A1) and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. In support of their joint compromise memo, they reiterated that they have no
objection for quashing both the cases pending against each other. 9.One important 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 accused. 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.However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual in nature and the parties themselves have now come forward to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. After exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the accused. 11.In view of the above and in the light of the joint compromise memo filed by the parties, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1068 of 2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai, as against all the accused persons, is hereby quashed. The case in Crime No.42 of 2023 on the file of J-13 Tharamani Police Station, is also hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN To 1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Circle Inspector of Police (Railways), Railway Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Egmore Railway Police Circle, Egmore, Chennai-600008.
3.The Inspector of Police, J-13 Tharamani Police Station Tharamani, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
MKN 18-06-2026