Allowed¶36

A.Johnwilson v. The State Rep by its

Madras HC8 Oct 2025CRL OP/24143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction; non-compoundable offences quashed on settlement; IPC Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 364, 384, 506(2); purely individual/personal dispute versus crime against society with overriding public interest; Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10; joint compromise memo made part of record; defacto complainant not willing to pursue proceedings; Semmancheri Police Station, Pallikaranai Police District; Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR in Cr.No.138 of 2024 as against the petitioners; the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent directed to form part of the record. ¶36

A.Johnwilson Vs The State Rep by its — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR in Cr.No.138 of 2024 as against the petitioners; the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent directed to form part of the record.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court can quash, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In the present case the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature, involving a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent; quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶30

Key takeaways

The FIR in Cr.No.138 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent is quashed as against the petitioners, and the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent shall form part of the record.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.) allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed FIR Cr.No.138 of 2024 of Semmancheri Police Station against five petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 364, 384 and 506(2) IPC, on the basis of a joint compromise memo. Relying on the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 and The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, the Court held that although the offences were non-compoundable, they were purely individual/personal in nature, involved only a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent, and their quashing would not affect any overriding public interest; the defacto complainant had affirmed the amicable settlement and was not willing to pursue the proceedings.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025

¶7

1.Johnwilson

¶8

2.Janarthanan

¶9

3.Mohammed Ibrahim

¶10

4.Sunil Gopinath

¶11

5.Ganesh ... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, Semmancheri Police Station Pallikaranai Police District Crime No.139 of 2024

¶14

Avinash Sivanantham ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to Cr.No.138 of 2024 against the petitioners on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Semmancheri Police Station and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Elangovan For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.G.M.Gokul Ram for M/s.Ram Gokul Advocates and Associates

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025

¶21

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to to call for the records relating to Cr.No.138 of 2024 against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 364, 384 and 506(2) of IPC on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Semmancheri Police Station and quash the same based on the compromise arrived between the parties.

¶22

2. The crux of the allegations in the FIR is that on 24.05.2024, when the defacto complainant returning to his home, the accused suddenly collided the defacto complainant's car and demanded money. The defacto complainant after escaping lodged the complaint. Hence, the FIR.

¶23

3. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.Bright Jabavino, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, T-16 Semmancheri Police Station.

¶24

4. On being enquired by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and he is not willing to pursue the the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

¶25

5. T he main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025

¶29

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 of Gujarat, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , 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 it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

¶30

In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners 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.

¶31

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.24143 of 2025

¶35

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶36

The FIR in Cr.No.138 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent is quashed as against the petitioners. The Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the record.

¶37

08.10.2025

¶38

dhk Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶39

¶40