M.Murugan v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M.Murugan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Seemancherry Police Station, Pallikaranai District.

Cr.No.102/2025.

2.Jayaprakash ..Respondent(s) To call for records in CC.No.220 of 2025 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Cholinganallur Court at Chengalpattu and the same for compromise quash and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Nivesh Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1

ORDER

The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offences under Sections 221, 351(2), of Bharat Naya Sanhita, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in CC.No.220 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Sholinganallur, has filed this quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant was working as Head Clerk in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur. On 10.03.2025, when the Magistrate was on leave, the cases were given adjournment in the open Court. When RLTOP.Nos.22, 23 and 24 of 2024 were called, the petitioner's counsel was absent and hence, adjourned to 05.04.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner therein asked for adjournment to 18.03.2025, and he was informed that already adjournment was given. Thereafter, the petitioner's lawyer, Murugan, threatened through phone stating that they should listen what he says. Further, on 12.03.2025, the said Murugan again threatened them why they had not spoken to him over the phone earlier. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged.

Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed by the respondent Police and the same has been taken on file in Spl.SC.No.103 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably.

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on complaint of the second respondent, the case came to be registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider 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 trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7.The petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel. 8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/defacto 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.

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 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 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 CC.No.220 of 2025. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.220 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, is quashed.

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

25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Sholinganallur Court at Chengalpattu 2.State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Seemancherry Police Station, Pallikaranai District.

Cr.No.102/2025.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

PVS 25-06-2026