G.Sivakumar v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.18531 of 2025 1.G.Sivakumar 2.Priyatharshini Ryndolf ... Petitioners Vs.

1.

State Rep.by Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

2.

K.V.Sajeev Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in First Information Report No.1558 of 2017 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : M/s.Reshmi Christy For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) (For R1) R2 - Appeared in person 1/6

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report No.1558 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3.

Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.1558 of 2017 was registered against the accused for the offences under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have amicably settled the dispute with the de facto complainant/R2 and they have also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect. Hence, he prayed to quash the First Information Report as against petitioners.

2/6

5.

The petitioners and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. 6.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant, who is a practising lawyer, stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

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 petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State 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 3/6

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 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 First Information Report registered in Crime No.1558 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

10. Since the dispute is of a trivial and personal nature, and both 4/6

parties have resolved their differences amicably, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.1558 of 2017 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed as against the petitioners. The Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.10.2025 kak To

1. The Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

kak and Crl.M.P.No.18531 of 2025 08.10.2025 6/6