Anusha v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Sub -Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Anusha

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, C6 Thudiyalur Police Station, 2.

Poorani Karuppusamy

...Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Dhamodaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl. Side), for R1 : Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, for R2

O R D E R

Today, this matter was listed under the caption "for reporting compliance".

2. It was reported that the order of this Court dated 21.11.2025, directing the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority has been complied with and the Memo of Compliance to that effect has also been filed before this Court.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

skt

3. The same is recorded and therefore, no further order is required. The said Memo of Compliance shall form part of the records. 07.01.2026 skt To:

1.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, C6 Thudiyalur Police Station, 2.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3.

The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai.

(1/2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.29353 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19959 of 2025 Anusha ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by, the Sub-Inspector of Police, C6, Thudiyalur Police Station,

2. Poorani Karuppusamy (De facto Complainant) ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, praying to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.14 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, C6, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore City and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Damodaran For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R against the Petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) I.P.C, 1860, before the respondent Police on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has given a sum of Rs.2,99,500/- to one Shake Thuffale through the de facto complainant on condition to repay the same within a stipulated time and thereafter even after repeated demands, the same was not repaid by him. Subsequently, the whereabouts of said person are not known. Hence, the petitioner has threatened the de facto complainant to settle the amount on behalf of the said Shake Thuffale. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise between themselves. The de facto complainant / second respondent has no grievance as against the Petitioner and to that effect, a Memo of Compromise dated, 10.11.2025, has also been filed.

4. The Petitioner and the de facto complainant were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by their respective counsel and by Mr.K.Suresh, HC 3152, C6 Thudiyalur Police Station,

5. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-Police 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.

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 Gujrat, 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./528 BNSS, to quash noncompoundable 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.

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. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Bharthi Devi v. State of Telengana reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384, has held that the offences, which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions, where the wrong is basically to the victim, and the offender and the victim have settled all the disputes between them amicably, can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR against the Petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent Police, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent, is quashed, as against the Petitioner, subject to condition that the Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the credit of Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court campus, Chennai 600 104, on or before 08.12.2025.

12. The Memo of Compromise, dated 10.11.2025, filed by the parties for compromising the offences, shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13. Post the matter on 09.12.2025 "for reporting compliance." 21.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No : Yes / No vum Note: Issue Order copy on 28.11.2025 To:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, C6, Thudiyalur Police Station,

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA ,J., vum Crl.O.P.No.29353 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No. 19959 of 2025 (2/2) 21.11.2025