Vijaya Kumar 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 Vijaya Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Inspector of Police, R.K,Pet Police Station, R.K.Pet, Thiruvallur District.
Crime No.622 of 2024.
2. Gajendran ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records in S.C.No.250 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) at Thiruvallur and Quash the same. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.G. Senthilkumar For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.S.Murthy for R2
ORDER
The petitioner/accused facing trial in S.C.No.250 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Court (Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court) at Thiruvallur, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) & 109(1)
BNS r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, Section 126(2) and 74 BNS, has filed the present quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the de facto complainant, namely Mohan, was in love affair with the daughter of the petitioner/accused. Since the petitioner did not like the same, on 04.12.2024, at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner came to the house of the de facto complainant and at that time, his mother and wife were there in the house. The petitioner abused the de facto complainant's wife and mother in a filthy language and assaulted them with hands. When the de facto complainant came to the house, the petitioner abused him and assaulted him with a blade on the neck, due to which, he sustained grievous injury and also threatened him of dire consequences.
Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the 1st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.622 of 2024 as against the petitioner, which culminated into S.C.No.250 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Court (Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court) at Thiruvallur. 3.The case is now at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves and they have filed a joint compromise memo, dated 07.10.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant' brother Mohan and the petitioner's daughter got married on 15.12.2024 and they are now happily living their marital life. Therefore, in view of the newly established family relationship between the parties, the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and have entered into a genuine and bone fide compromise. The 2nd respondent / de facto complainant no longer has any grievance against the petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the petitioner any further. The parties have also filed their individual affidavits to that effect. 5.Today, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. In support of the joint compromise memo, the de facto complainant reiterated that he is willing to compromise the matter and compound the offences pending against the accused.
6.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 accused. 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.
7.However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual in nature and the parties themselves 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. After exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the accused. 8.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in S.C.No.250 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Court (Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court) at
Thiruvallur, 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 Sessions Judge, (Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police, R.K,Pet Police Station, R.K.Pet, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
MKN 18-06-2026