Saravanan v. State Rep By, The 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. 10050 of 2026

1. Saravanan

2. Shanmugavadivu

3. Aishwarya ..Petitioners Vs.

1.

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

(Crime No. 4 of 2024).

2.

Harshini ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the final report/charge sheet in C.C. NO. 167 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam. For Petitioners ::

Mr.T. Saikrishnan For Respondents ::

Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 Ms. Sunithi Abirami for R2 1\10

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition is filed to quash the final report/charge sheet in C.C. No. 167 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam.

2.

The petitioners/A2 to A4 are respectively father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The allegations against the petitioners is that they conducted the marriage of their son\A1 with the 2nd respondent knowing fully well that he was having in an illegal relationship with another woman only with the intention to extort money from the 2nd respondent and her family and also caused mental agony by demanding more dowry. On the said allegations, the complaint came to be lodged by the 2nd respondent with the respondent Police. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 4 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections 498(A), 417 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed listing 11 witnesses, which was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 167 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam. 3.

The case is at the stage of trial.

2\10

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and that the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed.

5.

The petitioners/A2 to A4 and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court. They were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.S. Rajammal, WSSI 2414, Sathiyamangalam AllWomen Police Station, Erode District.

6.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. Consequent to the settlement reached, the de facto complainant has also agreed to withdraw the complaints lodged against the petitioners herein.

7.

The Joint Memo of Compromise dated 13.03.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below:

3\10

4\10

5\10

6\10

8.

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 against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 7\10

10. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners 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 C.C.No.167 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam 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.167 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam is quashed as against the petitioners.

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

05.06.2026 nv 2/2 8\10

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv Crl.O.P. NO.10050 of 2026 05.06.2026 10\10