J. Manohar Singh v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. J. Manohar Singh

2. V.Vikram Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State rep.by, Inspector of Police, V-1 Villivakkam Police station, Chennai.

2. J.Ahammed Suhail ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.110 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police V-1 Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai, and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Suresh For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners/accused in Crime No.110 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS, have filed the present quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.01.2026, A1 contacted the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant's firm and requested for delivery of 2 tons of copper valued approximately at Rs.21 Lakhs. On 05.01.2026, the de facto complainant transported the said goods from Puducherry to Chennai. After the goods were unloaded at a warehouse, the accused paid Rs.4 Lakhs in cash and promised to pay the remaining Rs.17 Lakhs via RTGS within three hours. Shortly thereafter, A1's mobile phone was switched off and the warehouse where the goods were unloaded was found locked. When enquired, the actual owner of the warehouse informed the de facto complainant that A1 had rented the warehouse only for two days by paying a small amount as advance and he had already cleared all the goods.

When the de facto complainant questioned about the same to A2, A2 claimed that A1 was his employee. When A2's behaviour became evasive and hostile, the de facto complainant entertained a doubt and thereby, lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent Police alleging that the accused conspired to steal his goods through a fake business setup.

case in Crime No.110 of 2026 came to be registered as against the petitioners. 3.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present quash petition accompanied with a joint compromise memo dated 09.04.2026 filed by A1 and A2 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder :

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties were not strangers and were engaged in a commercial trade of goods (copper). During a business transaction for purchase of 2,000 kg of copper for a value of Rs.21 Lakhs, the accused bona fidely paid a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs as an initial payment and thereafter, the remaining sum of Rs.17 Lakhs was promised to be paid through RTGS. However, inadvertently, after the payment, the contact between the seller and buyer was lost or disrupted immediately. However, subsequently, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and now, they have compromised the matter among themselves. The petitioners have also filed individual affidavits to that effect.

5.Learned counsel for the de facto complainant/2nd respondent submitted that, in order to ensure the well-being and peaceful future, the 2nd respondent is willing to compromise the matter. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has also filed an individual affidavit to that effect. 6.Today, the petitioners (A1 and A2) and the de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by Mr.T.Krishnamoorthi, Sub-Inspector of Police, V1 Villivakkam Police Station. The parties have expressed their willingness to compromise the matter and compound the offences pending against the accused.

7.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 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 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.

8.However, in the present case, the offence in question is a commercial transaction between two individual parties and they 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. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

9.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No.110 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties and the individual affidavits filed by the parties shall form part of the records.

18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN To 1.The Inspector of Police, V-1 Villivakkam Police station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

MKN 18-06-2026