K.Vinoth v. The State, Rep By, Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
1. K.Vinoth
2. U.Senthil ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State, rep by, Inspector of Police, N2-Kasimedu Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai.
2. K.Sujith ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.781 of 2021 on the file of N2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai, and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Magimai Raj For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.J.Jahith Rifai for R2
ORDER
The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.781 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC, have filed the present quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant is an Advocate. In February, 2021, the 1st petitioner approached the de facto complainant and his brother one K.R.Selvarajkumar and told that he is going to open a Fish Market at Madhavaram and assured that he will make the de facto complainant as a partner. Accordingly, the de facto complainant, with the help of his brother, gave a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- to the petitioner on 03.02.2021 and entered into an agreement. It was agreed that the petitioner will return the amount by 20.04.2021.
However, even till August, 2021, the petitioner neither returned the amount nor opened the Market. When questioned, the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant and his brother. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a Police complaint as against the petitioner. On the assurance given by the petitioner that he will not come in the way of the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant did not proceed further with the complaint. Thereafter, the de facto complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner with regard to a cheque issued by the petitioner. This being so, on 03.12.2021 at about 09.15 p.m.
standing at a Tea Shop, the 1st petitioner came in his two wheeler and abused the de facto complainant in public and intimidated him for sending legal notice. Again, shortly thereafter, the petitioners 1 and 2 threatened the de facto complainant of dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 3.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner has agreed to return a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the de facto complainant to close the financial transaction between them. Hence, he prays for quashing of the FIR. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present quash petition accompanied with a joint compromise memo, dated 01.05.
2026, filed by the petitioners (A1 and A2) and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, stating that the parties have decided to resolve the dispute amicably and cordial relationship has been developed and thereby, the de facto complainant has come forward to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioners. They have also filed individual affidavits to that effect.
6.Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police brought to the notice of this Court that the case has been closed by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, on 15.06.2024.
7.Today, the petitioners (A1 and A2) and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by Mr.S.Veerabahu, HC-7887, N-2 Kasimedu Police Station. The 2nd respondent / de facto complainant submitted that he is not willing to prosecute the petitioners any further.
8.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.
9.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. 10.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No.781 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties shall form part of the records.
18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN
To 1.The Inspector of Police, N2-Kasimedu Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
MKN 18-06-2026