Dravidrajan Srinivasan v. State Rep By The Special Sub Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Dravidrajan Srinivasan S/o.Srinivasan No.1/78, Kannandapalayam Street, Mevalur Kuppam, Thandalam, Kancheepuram-602105 ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State rep by The Special Sub Inspector of Police Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District Cr.No.148 of 2025
2. M.Suresh Thangaraj S/o.Thangaraj, No.36, 5th street, Krishna Nagar, Moovarasampettai, Madipakkam Post, Kancheepuram-600 091.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.148 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent, Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District and quash the same in view of the joint Memo of Compromise entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Narasingarajan For Respondent(s):
Mr.R. RAJASEKARAN Govt. Advocate (CRL. SIDE) FOR R1 Mr.Srikanth for R2
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in crime No.148 of 2025 for offence under Section 281 BNS filed this criminal original petition. 2.The case against the petitioner is that on 27.06.2024 at about 1.00 a.m. the petitioner was driving Bada Dhost vehicle bearing registration No.TN 10 BV 3944 carrying courier load from Mappedu to Keezhkattalai. When he reached near Vayalur, opposite to the Oil Company, a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 87 B 4302 (Kutti Yaanai), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from the opposite direction and collided with his vehicle. Due to the impact, the front right side of the petitioner's vehicle was damaged. Hence, lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, a case in crime No.148 of 2025 registered for offence under Section 281 BNS, 2023.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that it was a road accident and in the accident, no one injured and only the vehicle was damaged and the same was restored. During the pendency of the investigation, elders and wellwishers from both sides intervened to facilitate an amicable settlement. Consequently, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have reached a settlement
and resolved their differences. In respect of the same, they filed Joint memo of compromise, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder:
4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that it was a road accident and in the accident, no one injured. Though the parties entered into a compromise, while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, 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 defacto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.B.Kannan, SSI B6 Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 8.On interaction, the defacto complainant stated that in the accident, no one injured and only vehicle was damaged, which was also restored. He has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner 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 offence in question is purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners 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.148 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner.
12.The affidavit and Joint memo of compromised 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 Special Sub Inspector of Police Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District Cr.No.148 of 2025.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms 05-06-2026