P.Balasubramaniyam v. The State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA P.Balasubramaniyam
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The State rep. by, Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.20 of 2021) 2.
P.Chandhira @ Chandra
...Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records and quash the S.C.No.98 of 2025 in the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jayachandran 1/8
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side), for R1 : Mr.J.Ganesh, for R2
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash S.C.No.98 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvannamalai, for the offences under sections 417, 341, 420, 506(2) and 376(2)(n) IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The petitioner has stated that he has settled the dispute with the defacto complainant amicably and hence, seeks to quash the Charge Sheet filed against him. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant have also filed their 2/8
affidavits and a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect.
4. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant/the 2 nd respondent appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.J.Priya, WHC-154, AWPS Tiruvannamalai.
5. On being enquired by this Court, the de-facto complainant stated that the entire dispute arises due to wordy quarrel and without knowing the seriousness, she had initiated the criminal proceedings and that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and that she is married now and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the 1 st respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a 3/8
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.
7. 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 Gujarat, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gujarat 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 4/8
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.
8. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the de-facto 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.
9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the Final Report filed in the case in S.C.No.98 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvannamalai, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5/8
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of and the case in S.C.No.98 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvannamalai, is quashed on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104, within a period of two
(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The affidavits and the Memorandum of Understanding filed by the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 29.10.2025 skt Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No 6/8
To:
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
skt 7/8
29.10.2025 8/8