Gowtham v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Gowtham S/o. Sundharamoorthy, Ambedkar Nagar, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep By The State Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District.
2. Sarathi S/o. Mayavel, Meettu Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNS to call for records about the FIR bearing Crime No.661/2024 on the file of Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District, and quash the same, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.J.Karthik Eswaran For Respondent(s):
Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in crime No.661/2024 for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) BNS, 2023, has filed this quash petition.
2.The case against the petitioner is that about 15 years ago, the first
death anniversary poster of one Sundaramurthy poster was affixed on the inner side of the compound wall located on the western side of Vijaya Theatre, Panruti. At present, the said theatre has been renovated and converted into Vijaya Marriage Hall. On 10.11.2024, the defacto complainant's uncle's reception was scheduled to be held and the defacto complainant, after obtaining permission from the manager of the marriage hall, pasted a function banner on the said wall. Keeping this in mind, the petitioner Gowtham S/o. Sundaramoorthy, whenever he saw the defacto complainant used to threaten and abuse him in filthy language. Further, he also called the defacto complainant over the phone and continued to abuse him in the same manner. On 19.11.2024 at about 11.30 p.m. when the defacto complainant was near the railway station two-wheeler stand, the petitioner, in an inebriated condition, questioned him for pasting the banner and picked up a stone and assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, a complaint has been lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the poster was pasted only in connection with a marriage function and the same was removed thereafter. The petitioner admits that he was in an inebriated condition and that on 19.11.2024, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, during which, there was a push and pull. It is further submitted that the issue has now been amicably settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and in this regard, a memo of compromise entered into between them, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of sticking posters and that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.
7.The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S.Senthilkumar, HC 205, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District. 8.On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 10.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, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 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.
11.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner 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. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.661 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.
12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.661 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. 13.The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
10-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms
To
1. The State Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms 10-04-2026