Arun Rajkumar Fredrick v. State By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Arun Rajkumar Fredrick ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, C-3, Manimangalam Police Station Kanchipuram Crime No.158 of 2018 2.

Dr.P.Balakrishnamurthy ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records to quash the FIR in Cr.No.158 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, C-3, Manimangalam Police Station, Kanchipuram as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Nagarajan For R1 :

Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 :

Mr.C.Umashankar

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the Cr.No.158 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 342 and 506(ii) of IPC. 1/5

2. Today, the petitioner and the defacto complainant/second respondent have filed a joint memo of compromise stating that they have settled the dispute with the de facto complainant amicably and hence, seek to quash the FIR as against the petitioner.

3. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared through video conferencing and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team 5, EDF-I, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

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

5. 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 2/5

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 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.

6. 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.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Cr.No.158 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent is quashed as against the petitioner. The Joint Memo of Compromise filed by 3/5

the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the record.

25.09.2025 dhk To

1. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Manimangalam Police Station Kanchipuram

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

4/5

dhk 25.09.2025 5/5