K.Chandran v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR 1.K.Chandran 2.C.Selvi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.
In Crime No.760/2025 2.Gayathiri ..Respondent(s) To call for the records relating to the proceedings connection with crime in 760/2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent, Uduamalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District quash the same, and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.R.Pushpalatha For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Ms.J.Jasmine Cina, for R2
ORDER
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.760 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, has filed this quash petition.
2.The case of the prosecution is that after the death of the de facto complainant's husband, she married the first petitioner/first accused in a Temple. The first accused had allegedly desired a male heir, however, following the birth of a female child, a domestic conflict arose between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. On 28.11.2025, when the first accused and his first wife/the second accused, visited the de facto complainant's house, a verbal altercation occurred involving the use of obscene language. During this encounter, the second accused physically assaulted the complainant by pulling her hair and kicking her and thereafter issued life threats. Subsequently, the second respondent lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably. In view of the settlement, they have filed a Joint Compromise Memo, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder:
4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint of the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider 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 petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel. 8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/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.
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 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 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 Crime No.760 of 2025.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 760 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed.
12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To 1.The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.
In Crme No.760/2025 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PVS 25-06-2026