Azhagiri v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Azhagiri ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore. (Crime No.141 of 2025) 2.

Vasudevan ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to Crime No.141 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Kannan For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.141 of 2025, pending on the file of the first respondent, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/second respondent. 2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.

3.

Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.141 of 2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 296 & 118(1) of BNS.

4.

The petitioner has stated that he has settled the dispute with the de facto complainant/R2 amicably and hence, seek to quash the First Information Report as against him. They has also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect.

2/6

5.

The petitioner and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by the counsel as well as by Mr.A.Stalin Raj, Gr.I, 1562, Ramanatham Police Station.

6.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7.

The learned Government Advocate (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 an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

8.

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 3/6

of Gujarat, 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 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 against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 9.

In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner 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 First Information Report registered in Crime No.141 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4/6

10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.141 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed as against the petitioner. The Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of this order. 11.09.2025 ham To

1. The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

ham 11.09.2025 6/6