Nisha v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
1. Nisha
2. Eagalaivan
3. Murugan
4. Uma
5. Surya
6. Ilayakumar ... Petitioners Vs.
1.State Inspector of Police Vengal Police Station Tiruvallur (Crime No.595 of 2024)
2. Mageswari ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.595 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District and quash the same on the ground of compromise. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For 1 st Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/7
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.595 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024, registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS read with Section 4 of TNPWH Act, pending on the file of the first respondent Police, on the ground of compromise.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant is that the petitioners abused her and her husband in a filthy language; assaulted with a wooden log and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the above First Information Report came to be registered against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the daughter-in-law, the second petitioner is the son and the petitioners 3 to 6 are the relatives of the de facto complainant. He would further submit that there was a family dispute between the parties as a result 2/7
of which, the FIR came to be registered. Now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and a Memorandum of Joint Compromise dated 17.11.2025 has also been filed to that effect.
4. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, Spl. Sub Inspector, C5, Vengal Police Station.
5. This Court enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent police submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while the investigation 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 non3/7
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./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 cases, 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 the First 4/7
Information Report registered against the petitioners in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report registered against the petitioners in Crime No.595 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed.
11. The Memorandum of Joint Compromise dated 17.11.2025, signed by both the parties for compromising the offences, shall form part of the records.
27.11.2025 ksa-2 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 5/7
To 1.The Inspector of Police Vengal Police Station Tiruvallur 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 6/7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.
ksa-2 27.11.2025 7/7