Disposed¶11

Immanuvel Leeban v. Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Nov 2025CRL OP/30360/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS; matrimonial dispute; offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) and 34 IPC; compromise and MOU dated 12.11.2025; non-compoundable offences; individual-versus-societal-crime test from Parbathbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; C.C.No.56 of 2024 quashed; Rs.15,000 costs to TNSLSA; Madras High Court, 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition disposed of; proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2024 quashed as against the petitioners, on condition of payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) within two weeks; affidavits and Memorandum of Understanding to form part of the record. ¶11

Immanuvel Leeban Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS), can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners, on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the parties.

¶9

Court's answer

The offences in question (arising out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent) 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.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the Court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2024 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, as against the petitioners, on condition that they pay Rs.15,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.), Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025, decided 14.11.2025. Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2024 (Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore), arising from Crime No.7 of 2024 of AWPS, Anna Nagar Police Station, for offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) and 34 IPC, founded on an amicable settlement between the parties to a matrimonial dispute, including a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2025 providing for return of belongings and jewels and a mutual-consent divorce petition: HELD, the offences are purely individual/personal in nature; quashing would not affect any overriding public interest and no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings (applying the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 9 SCC 641). Petition disposed of; proceedings quashed as against the petitioners on condition of payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to TNSLSA within two weeks; the affidavits and Memorandum of Understanding to form part of the record.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶7

Immanuvel Leeban

¶8

Ebran Joseph 3. Kavitha 4. Irudhaya Jesintha 5. Andhoni @ Andhoni Raj 6. Prabha ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1 . The Sub-Inspector of Police, AWPS – Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

2 . Jebakani Ishwarya ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.56 of 2024, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistratecum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶13

1/10

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioners : Ms.G.Amala For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Ms.D.Kamachi

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2024, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

¶19

2 . Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶20

record.

¶21

3 . Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.7 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) and 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance of in C.C.No.56 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore .

¶22

2/10

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025 4 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for

¶25

the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and that on the advice of the elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. It is further submitted that the parties have also agreed to return the respective belongings and jewels to each other and the first petitioner and the second respondent have also agreed to file a divorce petition by mutual consent. Hence, they seek to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Memorandum of Understanding to that effect have also been filed.

¶26

5 . The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.P.Lakshmisri, WSSI, W7 AWPS .

¶27

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

¶28

7 . The scanned copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2025 entered into between the parties is reproduced below:-

¶29

3/10

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶32

4/10

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶35

5/10

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶38

6/10

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶41

8 . Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on

¶42

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 an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

¶43

9 . 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 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 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 they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 7/10

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶46

10. 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. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.56 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cumAdditional Mahila Court, Egmore , in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶47

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed o f and the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2024 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, is quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum 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 (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

8/10

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.30360 of 2025

¶51