Balaji.M v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Balaji M.

2. Narasimman ..Petitioners Vs.

1.

The State rep. by Inspector of Police Station, T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

2.

Sureshkumar ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR in Crime No. 289 of 2026 on the file of T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

For Petitioners ::

Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy for Mr.R. Yash Rathi For Respondents ::

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

O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 289 of 2026 on the file of T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.2,10,000/- from the 1st petitioner in January, 2026 and promised to repay the same by the 1st week of April, 2026. The 2nd respondent also made part payments subsequently to the tune of Rs.70,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.1,50,000/-. As the 2nd respondent failed to pay the balance of Rs. 1,50,000/- by 1st week of April, 2026, the petitioners approached him on 11.04.2026 and demanded repayment of the amount due. As the 2nd respondent expressed his inability to pay the amount, a dispute arose between them. The petitioners abused him in filthy language, forcibly took him in a car and assaulted him with weapons and hands. At that time, the 2nd respondent sought help from one of his friends and repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/- thereafter which the petitioners threatened him that if he failed to pay the remaining amount within a week, then he would be done away with. Hence, the complaint. Based on the 2\10

complaint, a case in Crime No. 289 of 2026 came to be registered by the 1st respondent Police for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 140(2), 127(2), 351(2) of BNS.

3.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

4.

The case is at the stage of investigation. Since the parties have 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.

5.

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by Mr.S. Suthakar, PC 50195, T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station.

6.

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

7.

The Joint Memo of compromise dated 17.04.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below: 3\10

4\10

5\10

6\10

7\10

8.

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. 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 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.

10.

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 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.289 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

11.

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.289 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed.

9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv

12. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 17.04.2026 filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

05.06.2026 nv To 1.

Inspector of Police Station, T-4, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

2.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

10\10