Babu v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRL OP No. 23749 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.16229 of 2025

1. Babu S/o.Ramadass, No.159/152, Shasthri Nagar 8th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600012.

2. Anand Alias Anandaraj S/o.Devaraj, No.348/354, Sasthri Nagar 18th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600 012.

3. Ajith S/o.Devaraj, No.248, Sasthri Nagar 18th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600 012.

4. Sugumar S/o.Ramadass, No.159/152, Shasthri Nagar 8th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600 012.

5. Mahalakshmi W/o.Ramadass, No.159/152, Shasthri Nagar 8th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600012.

6. Amulu Alias Thilagavathy D/o.Devaraj, No.348/354, Sasthri

Nagar 18th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600012.

7. Sangeetha W/o.Anandaraj, No.354, Sasthri Nagar 18th Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai - 600 012.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, P1 Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.73 of 2024 2.Santhiya D/o.Parthasarathi, No.158, Sasthri Nagar, 8th Street, Pulisanthope, Chennai - 600012.

Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the entire records connected with the F.I.R. in Crime No.73 of 2024, on the file of the 1st Respondent Police herein and QUASH the same and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Anbazhagan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinodhraja, Government Advocate [Crl.Side] - R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.73 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in the case in Crime No.73 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under sections 147, 448, 323, 355, 506[2] of IPC and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The allegations against the accused is that they trespassed into the mother's house of the defacto complainant where she is living, abused her in derogatory words and had beaten her and caused severe injuries.

3. The petitioners along with the second respondent had filed a Joint Compromise Memo wherein it has been stated that both parties had already settled the matter amicably and and both the parties had given consent affidavit for quashing the First Information Report.

4. The petitioners are present before this Court and they had been identified by their learned counsel and the defacto complainant is also present and she had been identified by Mr.K.Stephen, Sub Inspector, P.1. Pulianthope Police Station. This Court enquired the defacto complainant and she had stated that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and she is not willing to proceed with the the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor 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 an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

6. 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 Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 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 it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

7. In the present case, the offence in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the 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 First Information Report registered in Crime No.73 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report registered in Crime No.73 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent is quashed. The Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vrc To The Inspector of Police, P1 Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.73 of 2024

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

vrc 28-08-2025