Varshini v. State Represented By The Inpector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and CRL.MP.Nos.10508 and 10616 of 2026 CRL.OP.No.16027 of 2026
1. Varshini D/o. Mohanraj
2. Janani W/o. Mohanraj
3. S.Mohan Raj ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode District.
Crime No.105 of 2026
2. Viswanathan S/o. Kandasamy ..Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 16122 of 2026
1. Viswanathan S/o. Kandasamy
2. Revathi W/o. Viswanathan
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode District.
Crime No. 104 of 2026.
2. Janani C/o.S.Mohanraj ..Respondent(s) CRL.OP.No.16027 of 2026 To call for the records in Crime No.105 of 2026 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same for the reasons stated above and pass as such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.A.Baskar for R2 CRL.OP.No.16122 of 2026 To call for the entire records in Crime No. 104 of 2026 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent and Quash the same for the reasons stated above and pass as such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit for the Circumstances of the casea and thus render Complete Justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Baskar For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.S.Vijay Chakravarthi, for R2
COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in Crime Nos.104 and 105 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, to quash the criminal proceedings. 2.The case of the prosecution is that Janani, her daughter Varshini, Viswanathan and his wife Revathi are neighbours. There is previous enmity between them regarding grazing of cattle through a public pathway. On 09.04.2026, at about 5.00 p.m., one of the goat belonging to Janani went near the house of Revathi, whereupon Revathi beaten the goat with a stick. On seeing the same, Janani's daughter Varshini questioned the act. This led to an altercation between both sides, during which they allegedly abused with each other filthy language and assaulted with weapons.
Following the said occurrence, both parties lodged complaints against each other. Pursuant to which, separate FIRs came to be registered against each other. Thus, the matter arises out of a case and counter-case between the parties. 3.The learned counsel appearing for either of the parties 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.
reproduced hereunder:
4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that based on the complaint of both parties, FIRs came to be registered. 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. Both the parties appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel and the respondent Police. 8.On interaction by this Court, both the parties stated that they have amicably settled the dispute between them and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek 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 non-
compoundable offences pending against the parties. 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 parties 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 in both Crime Nos.104 and 105 of 2026 before the first respondent Police.
11.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos.104 and 105 of 2026 pending on the file of the first
respondent, are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memos filed by the parties for compromising the offences shall form part of the record. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To
1. The Inspector of Police Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode District.
Crime No.105 of 2026
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PVS 25-06-2026