Suresh Kumar (Barola) v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Nov 2025CRL OP/12106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023 (Madras HC, 25.11.2025, A.D.Jagadish Chandira J.): quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS of C.C.No.72 of 2023 (section 420 IPC) before JM-II Chengalpattu on joint compromise; Parbathbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 purely-individual versus societal-crime test applied; DCB Chengalpattu investigation pending; de facto complainant abroad authorized brother V.Manohar; Joint Memo of Compromise; conditional costs Rs.15,000 to TNSLSA within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai, within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶37

Suresh Kumar (Barola) Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the petitioners (here, on the strength of the parties' compromise). +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

In exercising its quashment jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS over noncompoundable offences, this Court took into consideration the Supreme Court guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 — chiefly the test of whether the crime is purely individual in nature or a crime against society with overriding public interest, societal offences being unquashable even if settled between the parties.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The offences in C.C.No.72 of 2023 were found to be purely individual/personal in nature, involving only the petitioners and the de facto complainant; quashing the proceedings would not affect any overriding public interest and no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

On that basis the Criminal Original Petition was allowed and C.C.No.72 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu was quashed in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) within two weeks, the affidavit and Joint Memo of Compromise forming part of the records.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashment of noncompoundable offence on compromise permitted — Madras High Court (A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.), exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS and applying the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, allowed Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023 and quashed C.C.No.72 of 2023 (offence under section 420 IPC, Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu) after the petitioners and the de facto complainant V.Madhusudhanan settled the dispute through a Joint Memo of Compromise; the Court found the offence purely individual/personal in nature, its quashment affecting no overriding public interest and serving no useful purpose in continuance; quashment conditioned on payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to TNSLSA within two weeks.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7347 and 7348 of 2023

¶7

Suresh Kumar

¶8

Mrs.S.Chandra

¶9

Mrs. Mohana devi

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State rep by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Chengalpattu

¶13

V.Madhusudhanan … Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the entire records in C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu and to quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For R1 : Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.M.Deivanandam for R2

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

At the outset, it is worth pointing out that this Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu for the offence under section 420 IPC. However, the prayer has been worded to the effect that this petition is filed to quash C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the 1 st respondent police. This is the reason, the prayer has been modified in the cause title portion.

¶21

2. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant and his brother are partners in a company. The de facto complainant, Madhusudhanan, who is presently living in the United States of America has given an authorization letter, authorizing his brother, Mr.V.Manohar to settle the issue and compromise the matter and the matter is also compromised between the parties.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the de facto complainant would submit that now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and they have also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect.

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023

¶26

5. The petitioners and the person authorised by de facto complainant / 2nd respondent were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they

¶27

were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr.M.Natarajan, SSI, DCB-I, Chengalpattu.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

¶30

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.

¶31

8. 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 petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State

¶32

of Gujarat, reported in ( 2017) 9 SCC 641 , has given sufficient guidelines 3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the case in n C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu i exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.

¶37

1 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the C.C.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, 4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.12106 of 2023 Chengalpattu, is quashed subject to condition that the petitioners shall pay

¶40

costs of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The affidavit and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

¶41

25.11.2025

¶42

shl

¶43

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶44

¶45