R.Ramamoorthy v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. R. Ramamoorthy

2. R. Selvakumar

3. S. Dhanalakshmi ..Petitioners Vs.

1. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2. Mrs. Badhmavathy @ Padmavathy ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 6 of 2026 pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur.

For Petitioners ::

Mr.A. Arunkumar For Respondents ::

Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 1\10

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 6 of 2026 pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur.

2.

The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent; the 2nd petitioner is the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have two children and due to matrimonial discord, the complaint came to be lodged.

3.

Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.315 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed listing 8 witnesses and taken cognizance in C.C. No. 6 of 2026 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a 2\10

matrimonial dispute and that with the intervention of family members and well-wishers the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.

5.

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by Mr.Y. Rajan, SSI, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Kovai.

6.

On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7.

The Joint Compromise Memo filed by the parties dated 25.05.2026 is scanned and reproduced below:

3\10

4\10

5\10

6\10

8.

Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that 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. 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 petitioners. 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 non-compoundable 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 7\10

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 petitioners and the second respondent 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 C.C.No.6 of 2026 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2026 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur, is quashed as against the petitioners. 8\10

12. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

10.06.2026 nv To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv 10.06.2026 10\10