Kamalesh v. The 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. 11360 of 2026

1. Kamalesh

2. Dawoothar ..Petitioners Vs.

1.

State rep. by Inspector of Police, F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Triplicane District, Chennai - 600 002.

2.

Parvathy ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for records in Crime No. 48 of 2025 dated 28.01.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No. 48 of 2025 based on the compromise.

For Petitioners ::

Mr.B. Poul For Respondents ::

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

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition is filed to call for records in Crime No. 48 of 2025 dated 28.01.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No. 48 of 2025 based on the compromise between the parties.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2025, the brother of the 2nd respondent, namely, Adhiseshan, who is a 1st year BA English Student at Government Arts and Science College, Nandanam, is said to have been assaulted by a group of New College Students, when he was on his way home in a Metropolitan Transport bus. Based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the 1st respondent registered a case in Crime No. 48 of 2025 for offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 190 of BNS against the petitioners. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident occurred due to misunderstanding and miscommunication between students of different colleges and there was no deep-rooted enmity or malicious intent behind the incident. The petitioners have also expressed sincere regret and apology for any hurt, injury or trauma caused to the 2\10

victim. Learned counsel would further submit that the pendency of the proceedings would affect the educational and career prospects of the petitioners.

4.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the incident had occurred due to a misunderstanding between college students and the petitioners have expressed their sincere apologies for their conduct to the 2nd respondent and the victim, which has been accepted by them.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

6.

The case is at the stage of investigation. Since the parties now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed.

7.

The petitioners, the de facto complainant/R2 and the victim appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by K. Sanjeevi, SI, F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Triplicane District, Chennai - 600 002.

3\10

8.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant and the victim stated that they have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same. 9.

The Joint Memo of compromise dated 06.04.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below: 4\10

5\10

6\10

7\10

10.

Learned Government Counsel 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. 11.

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 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 8\10

interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

12.

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 the victim and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.48 of 2025, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

13.

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.48 of 2025, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed.

9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv

14. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 06.04.2026 filed by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent and the victim for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 05.06.2026 nv To 1.

Inspector of Police, F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Triplicane District, Chennai - 600 002.

2.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P. No. 11360 of 2026 10\10