M.Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M.Manoj Kumar S/o.Murugan, No.82A, Solaiamman Kovil Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600 118.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

2. D.Venkatesan S/o.Dhasarathan, No.11, Sathyam Flats, Perumal Kovil Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 600029.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crime No.618/2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same on the basis of compromise and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Arumugavel For Respondent(s):

Mr.R. RAJASEKARAN Govt. Advocate (CRL. SIDE) For R1 Mr.P.Kirubavathi for R2

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in crime No.618 of 2024 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioner is that on 15.10.2024, after completing work, the defacto complainant came near his house at about 11.00 p.m. and was cleaning his share auto. At that time, when he was talking to his wife over phone, the accused, who is also Auto driver, asked him where is Karthik's auto? And abused him in filthy language and picked up a wooden log lying nearby and assaulted him on the back of his head, hands and legs and caused injuries. Hence, lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.618 of 2024 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(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 both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are auto drivers and due to some misunderstanding, the problem was raised. Now, the parties entered into compromise among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, a Joint Compromise Memo entered between them, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder:

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that both are auto drivers and there was some misunderstanding. 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 D.Mahesh SSI, K3 Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

8.On interaction by this Court, the defacto 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.

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.618 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.618 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. 12.The affidavit and the Joint 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, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms 05-06-2026