Somasunthirarajan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No. 30864 of 2025 1.Somasunthirarajan 2.Sugandhan 3.N.Pragadheesh ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode District.
2.Ganesan Kumar @ Ganesaperumal ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of 1/10
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same with respect to the petitioners herein. For Petitioners :
Mr. Roshan Atiq. M For Respondent 1 :
Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Respondent 2 :
Dr. P.G.Santhosh Kumar
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent. 2/10
2. The FIR has been registered based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant with regard to civil disputes between the petitioners and the de facto complainant.
3. The petitioners have filed an affidavit and they, along with the second respondent, have filed a Joint Compromise Memo, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent, have amicably settled the issue between themselves and hence, seek to quash FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent.
4. Mrs. S.Priya, Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode District, was present before this Court and she informed this Court that the de facto complainant and the petitioners had approached her and informed that since they have amicably settled the dispute between them, they do not want to proceed further with the criminal 3/10
proceedings.
5. The de facto complainant was also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the de facto complainant and he stated that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and he is not willing to proceed with the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. 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.
4/10
7. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable 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, 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 they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 5/10
8. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners 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 FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of and the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- 6/10
(Rupees Five Thousand only) each, 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 affidavit and the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
13.11.2025 kan 7/10
To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
8/10
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
kan Crl.O.P.No. 30864 of 2025 9/10
13.11.2025 10/10