K.V.Gowri Ammal v. The State Represented 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

1. K.V.Gowri Ammal W/o.K.R.Venkata Krishnan Reddy, No.25/24, Reddy Street, Chinna Koladi, Thiruverkadu, Chennai - 600077.

2. K.V.Uma Shankar S/o.K.R.Venkata Krishna Reddy, No.25/24, Reddy Street, Chinna Koladi, Thiruverkadu, Chennai - 600077.

3. S.Yamuna W/o.Sridhar, D/o.K.R.Venkata Krishnan Reddy, No.5/11, SV Perumal Koil Garden Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600106.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Team LD-V, Central Crime Branch, Avadi, Avadi Commissionerate, Crime No.37/2026

2. R.Aadhi Kesavulu S/o.Ramu Reddiyar, No.3/124, Gangai Amman Kovil Street, Mettupalayam, Thiruverkadu Post, Kannapalayam, Chennai - 600077.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crime number 37/2026 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police Team LD-V, Central Crime Branch, Avadi and Quash the same as against the petitioners and grant such other equitable relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N.Kumanan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners/accused in crime No.37 of 2026 for offences under Sections 465, 468 & 471 IPC filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioners is that on 18.08.1969 the defacto complainant's father L.Ramu Reddiar died left behind four legal heirs, namely, 1.Aandaal, 2.late.R.Rishikesavalu 3. R. Adhikesavalur and 4.M.Lalitha. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant's father L.Ramu Reddiar executed a gift deed dated 21.09.1967 vide Document No.3491/1967, in favour of D.Venkata Krishnan, S/o. Duraisamy Reddiar, who was working under him, to an extent of 2.5 cents (1115 s.ft). The rest of 9 cents were owned by the defacto complainant's family. However, the legal heirs of D.Venkata Krishnan, namely

(1) K.V.Gauri Ammal (1st petitioner) (2) K.V.Thyagarajulu, (3) K.V.Jayaraman,

(4) K.V.Umasankar (2nd petitioner) and (5) S.Yamuna W/o. Sridhar, (3rd petitioner) executed a Partition Deed on 30.10.2015 vide Document No.2502/2015 unlawfully included the remaining 9 cents belonging to the defacto complainant's family and partitioned the entire property among themselves by using a fake death certificate and forged documents. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. The abovesaid 9 cents of land is Gramanatham land and the same is enjoyed by the petitioners' family, not belongs to the defacto family. In this regard, the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.595 of 2025 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners and the defacto complainant submitted that the parties are relatives. Now, at the intervention of elders, family members, the parties have resolved all their disputes amicably out of the Court. In view of the same, the petitioners have withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.595 of 2025 filed by them and the defacto complainant also accepted to withdraw the present complaint. Hence, they entered into compromise among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners and in this regard, a Joint Memorandum of Compromise entered between them, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder:

5.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that both parties are relatives and it is a civil dispute. 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.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.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.

8.The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.V.R.Sahaya Selvin, Inspector, CCB - Avadi. 9.On interaction by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that since the O.S.No.595 of 2025 was withdrawn, he is not willing to pursue the criminal

proceedings against the petitioners and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 10.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.

11.In the present case, the offences in question are 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 petitioners in

crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police. 12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.37 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners. 13.The affidavits 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, Team LD-V, Central Crime Branch, Avadi, Avadi Commissionerate, Crime No.37/2026.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms 05-06-2026