N.Muthu v. 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 AND CRL OP NO. 4114 OF 2024 and CRL.MP NO. 3040 OF 2024
1. N.Muthu
2. M. Chennammal ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Inspector of Police Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai.
Crime No.541 of 2023
2. Lourdu Paul Maurya ..Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 4114 of 2024 Lourdu Paul Maurya ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its Inspector Of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai.
Crime No.540 Of 2023
2. M.Chennamal ..Respondent(s)
To call for the records in FIR in Cr.No.541 of 2023, on the file of Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police station, Tambaram compromise and quash the same.
CRL OP No. 4114 of 2024 To call for the records of the proceedings in Cr.No.540 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and thereby render justice For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for M/s.K.Kamesh CRL OP No. 4114 of 2024 For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for M/s.K.Kamesh For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, for R2
Common Order These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in Crime Nos.540 of 2023 and 541 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, to quash the criminal proceedings. 2.The case of the prosecution is that Lourdu Paul Maurya, Muthu and his wife, Chennammal, are neighbours. On 09.08.2023, at about 10.00 a.m. a dispute arose between the parties over the parking of a Car, which culminated in an altercation. During which, they allegedly abused each other in filthy language, exchanged blows and caused damage to vehicles. 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 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.
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.
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 noncompoundable 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 Crime Nos.540 and 541 of 2023 before the first respondent Police.
11.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos.540 and 541 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent, are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12. It is to be noted that the parties involved are practising advocates. Owing to the heat of the moment, there was an exchange of heated words and some push and pull happened. However, the parties have since realised their mistakes and, bearing in mind their professional standing and future career prospects, have amicably resolved all their disputes. In view of the above compromise and quashing of criminal proceedings, it is clarified that the above case cannot be quoted against either of the parties in relation to their future career, employment, professional prospects or for any other purpose. 13.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo 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 Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai.
Crime Nos.540 & 541 of 2023
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
PVS AND CRL OP NO. 4114 OF 2024 25-06-2026