Madras High Court quashes non-compoundable offences (294[b], 323, 506[i] IPC) on compromise; offences purely individual, no public interest; costs of Rs.5,000 each to TNSLSA.
Quashing of C.C. No.808 of 2025 on condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- each to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. ¶72-74
The offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest, and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. ¶61-64
1/6 CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
1.Sathishkumar
Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The Inspector of Police, Law and order, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2.Shanmugasundaram
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, to c all for the records in C.C. No.808 of 2025 in FIR No.145 of 2024 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Saranath
For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C. No.808 of
2025, pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
2/6
Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences under sections 294[b], 323 and 506[i] of IPC
r/w 34 IPC.
2. The allegation against the accused in the Final Report is that in a
wordy quarrel, the accused are said to have abused the de facto complainant and
threatened him.
3. The petitioners have filed an affidavit and they, along with the second
respondent, have filed a Memorandum of Understanding, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioners and the second respondent, on the advice of their
elders, have amicably settled the issue between themselves and hence, seek to
quash the Final Report.
4. Mr.S.Rajasekaran, Sub Inspector of Police E-1, Mylapore Police
Station, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004, was present before this Court and he informed this Court that the de facto complainant and the petitioners had
approached him and informed that since they have amicably settled the dispute
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
3/6
between them, they do not want to proceed further with the criminal
proceedings.
time of hearing. This Court enquired the de facto complainant and he had stated
that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and he is not
willing to proceed with the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same.
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 an offence of this nature can be
quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
7. T he main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to
whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-
compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme
4/6 CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
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 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 it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
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.
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
5/6
9.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the Final Report
filed in the case in C.C. No.808 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Saidapet, Chennai, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
in C.C. No.808 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, at Saidapet, Chennai , is quashed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104, within a period of two (2) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. T he affidavit and the Memorandum of Understanding filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
29-10-2025
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No sli
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
6/6
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.
sli
To
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL OP No. 29128 of 2025
29-10-2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners.¶52-54
The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in C.C. No.808 of 2025 is quashed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.ratio¶68-74
Whether the offences in question are purely individual in nature or a crime against society with overriding public interest.¶59-60
The offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest, and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.ratio¶61-64
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶57-58
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and AnotherRelied on¶58-59
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
4 provisions across 3 enactments
How this case reached the court
C.C. No.808 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences under sections 294[b], 323 and 506[i] of IPC r/w 34 IPC.¶20-26
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai
FIR No.145 of 2024 registered at Mylapore Police Station.¶15
Final Report filed alleging wordy quarrel, abuse and threat by accused.¶27-29
Petitioners filed affidavit and Memorandum of Understanding stating amicable settlement.¶30-34
Sub Inspector of Police informed court that parties approached him and do not want to proceed further.¶36-42
De facto complainant stated before court that dispute settled and he is unwilling to proceed.¶43-46
Government Advocate argued that despite compromise, court must consider seriousness of offence.¶47-51
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and order, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004¶11-14,17-18
R.Vinothraja
Shanmugasundaram¶13-14
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAauthor¶5
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
