B.Baskar v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.MP.No.8997 of 2026 B.Baskar S/o.Balaraman, No. 2/523, Brahmin Street, RK Pet Village and Post, RK Pet Taluk, Thiruvallur District 631303 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Represented by Inspector of Police, D-1,Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruvallur District (crime.no. 209 of 2026)

2. Susila W/o. Duraisamy, No.15/5, Salai Street, Kondapuram, RK Pet Taluk, Thiruvallur District 631 303.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crime No.209 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N. Suriyamuthu For Respondent(s):

Mr.R. RAJASEKARAN Govt. Advocate (CRL. SIDE) for R1

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in crime No.209 of 2026 for offences under Sections 127(2), 191(2) and 140(3) of BNS, 2023 filed this quash petition.

2.The case against the petitioner is that on 15.04.2026, the Defacto complainant's son, who is working as a Clerk in paddy Center, Thommur Village, Thiruvallur District, was returning from his workplace to his resident on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 20 EZ 6079 (Yamaha MT 15) at around 9.00 pm, the petitioner, along with four unidentified associates, intercepted the complainant's son, Rajkumar, near the Tiruttani-Pothatturpettai junction and forcibly abducted him in a Maruthi Suzuki Ertiga (TN 20 DY 0852) under the suspicion that Rajkumar assisted the accused daughter in eloping two days prior. Hence, lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in crime No.209 of 2026 for offences under Sections 127(2), 191(2) & 140(3) of BNS, 2023). 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/second respondent submitted that the petitioner's daughter eloped with a person known to the son of the defacto complainant and the son of the defacto complainant was friend of the said person. Hence, there was some misunderstanding. Now, the parties entered into compromise among themselves.

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that there was some misunderstanding between the parties. 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.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by G.Annadurai, SSI, D1, Tiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 8.On being enquired by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

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 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 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.

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant 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 crime No.209 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.209 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.

12.The affidavit and the Compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms To

1. The Inspector of Police, D-1,Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruvallur District (crime.no. 209 of 2026)

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms and Crl.MP.No.8997 of 2026 05-06-2026