Hariharasudhan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P. No. 10757 of 2026 Hariharasudhan ..Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, T5 - Vaanagaram Police Station, Koyambedu District, (Crime No. 56 of 2026).

2.

Vinai Anand ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records connected with FIR in Crime No. 55 of 2026 dated 24.02.2026 under Sections 126(2), 296(b) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pending investigation on the file of 1st respondent Police and quash the same.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.K. Sakthivel For Respondens ::

Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.P. Balaji for R2 1\10

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition is filed to call for the entire records connected with FIR in Crime No. 55 of 2026 dated 24.02.2026 under Sections 126(2), 296(b) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pending investigation on the file of 1st respondent Police and quash the same. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner are neighbours. There was some dispute between the mother of the petitioner and the mother of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent. On the date of occurrence, ie., on 23.02.2026 also, there was some dispute between the mother of the petitioner and that of the de facto complainant earlier in the day and in the evening when the de facto complainant/2nd respondent and his brother returned from College, the petitioner is said to have questioned them regarding the conduct of their mother and assaulted them, due to which they suffered injuries. Hence, the complaint. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 55 of 2026 came to be registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by the 1st respondent Police. 2\10

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are neighbours and the occurrence had taken place purely due to a misunderstanding and sudden loss of emotional control and that the parties have now amicably settled the dispute among themselves.

4.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would also submit that the parties have come to an amicable settlement and that the 2nd respondent is willing to withdraw the complaint. 5.

Learned Government Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that it is a matter of case and counter and the petitioner has also lodged a complaint as against the 2nd respondent and his brother with regard to the very same occurrence, which has been registered in Crime No. 56 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police. 6.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Counsel for the 1st respondent.

7.

The case is at the stage of investigation. Since the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to 3\10

quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed.

8.

The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. 9.

On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

10.

The Joint Memo of compromise dated 15.04.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below: 4\10

5\10

6\10

7\10

11. 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.

12. 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 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 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. 8\10

13.

In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent 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.55 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

14.

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed.

15. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 15.04.2026 filed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

nv 05.06.2026 9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv To

1. The Inspector of Police, T5 - Vaanagaram Police Station, Koyambedu District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P. No. 10757 of 2026 05.06.2026 10\10