Allowed¶59

Sarvajeeth Halder v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2025CRL OP/31920/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashed on joint compromise; non-compoundable offences ss. 296(b) & 118(1) BNS Act 2023; petition under S. 528 BNSS; quash ordered invoking S. 482 Cr.P.C.; Supreme Court guidelines of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat (2017 9 SCC 641) applied; police-verified joint compromise affidavit; complainant compensated approx. Rs. 2,00,000/- incl. MIOT hospital treatment; Crime No. 195/2025, J-13 Taramani Police Station, Chennai; Madras High Court; Justice M. Nirmal Kumar; decided 24-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition was allowed; as a sequel, the FIR in Crime No.195 of 2025 and the investigation therein, on the file of the first respondent police (J-13, Taramani Police Station, Chennai), stand quashed. ¶59

Sarvajeeth Halder Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the amicable settlement between the petitioner and the de facto complainant (joint compromise affidavit, police verification, complainant's consent), the FIR in Crime No.195 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b) and 118(1) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 — though the offences are not compoundable — should be quashed.

¶53

Court's answer

Although the offences involved are not compoundable in nature, considering the submissions and the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the First Information Report pending.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

In light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 9 SCC 641 (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the First Information Report in Crime No.195 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, allowing the criminal original petition.

¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Justice M. Nirmal Kumar), 24-11-2025 — CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025 (with Crl.MP.No.22064 of 2025), filed under S. 528 BNSS by Sarvajeeth Halder seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 195/2025 of J-13, Taramani Police Station, Chennai, for offences under ss. 296(b) and 118(1) of B.N.S. Act, 2023. The FIR arose from an incident of 13/14.09.2025 in which the petitioner, during a quarrel with his wife at their apartment, allegedly abused, pushed, kicked and struck with a stone the de facto complainant, a security officer who had intervened. Counsel stated the petitioner (a Public Sector Bank employee) provided medical assistance including MIOT hospital treatment and paid approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant; the parties resolved the matter; a joint compromise affidavit was filed before the Court and the respondent police verified the identities and confirmed the compromise genuine; the de facto complainant and the petitioner's wife confirmed reconciliation and consented. Held (ratio): though the offences were not compoundable, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR pending; applying the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat (2017 9 SCC 641), the Court exercised its jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the FIR and the investigation in Crime No.195 of 2025. Disposition: petition allowed.

¶1

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025 and

¶7

Crl.MP.No.22064 of 2025

¶8

Sarvajeeth Halder S/o.Biswajit Halder, Residing at No. 4/360, Sri Jayendra Colony, Vijayashanthi Apartments, OMR Road, Kandhanchavadi, Chennai - 600096.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

State Rep. By The Inspector of Police J-13, Taramani Police Station, Chennai. Crime No. 195/2025.

¶12

2.Suganantham S/o.Santhanam, No. 10, Rajiv Nagar, Perungudi, Chennai - 96.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER :The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 195/2025 on the file of

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶18

the Inspector of Police, J-13, Taramani police station, Chennai and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Ms. Rita Chandrasekar For Ms.R.Meenakshi

¶20

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in crime

¶23

No.195 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296 (b) and 118(1) of B.N.S. Act,

¶24

¶25

2.The gist of the complaint is that on 14.09.2025 at about 6.30 am., the

¶26

respondent police, on receiving information from the Government Royapettah

¶27

Hospital, had gone there. At that time, the de facto complainant/second respondent informed that on 13.09.2025, he was employed as Assistant Security

¶28

Officer in Vijayashanthi Apartments, Kandhanchavadi. During the night hours,

¶29

when he was on duty, the petitioner and his wife, who are residing there, had

¶30

some dispute between them and they were abusing each other, which took place

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶34

outside their house within the apartment premises. At that time, the de facto

¶35

complaint/second respondent as a Security Officer intervened in the fight to save the petitioner’s wife from being attacked. In the course of the fight, the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in Hindi, pushed him down, kicked him and attacked him with a stone. On seeing others coming out from the apartment, petitioner left the place. The de facto complainant sustained injuries and thereafter, with the help of his daughter and others, he was taken by ambulance to the Government Royapettah Hospital. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered.

¶36

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner an

¶37

employee in a Public Sector Bank holding a respectable position. Further, in a

¶38

fit of rage during a dispute between the petitioner and his wife, the second respondent unnecessarily intervened and caught in the melee, the petitioner had

¶39

no intention to attack the de facto complainant. During the intervention, the de facto complainant slipped, fell down and sustained injuries, for which, the

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶43

petitioner is now prosecuted. The petitioner, on humanitarian consideration considering de facto complaint sustained injuries, provided him with all medial assistance including treatment at MIOT hospital and paid around Rs.2,00,000/to the de facto complainant including medical expenses. Now de facto complainant and petitioner resolved the issue and de facto complainant comes forward to withdraw the complaint.

¶44

4.The second respondent/de facto complainant appeared in person and

¶45

confirmed the incident took place due to a quarrel between the husband and wife. He intervened got slipped and fell down sustained injuries. He further confirmed that he was given medical treatment and adequately compensated by the petitioner. Further de fact complainant has no objection to quash the FIR.

¶46

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto

¶47

complainant employed as a Security Officer in Vijayasanthi Aparatments.

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶51

During quarrel between husband and wife, de facto complainant intervened, slipped and fell down, sustained injuries. The petitioner adequately compensated de facto complainant also provided all medical help. A joint compromise affidavit filed before this Court and handed over to the respondent police. The respondent police verified the identity of both the petitioner and the de facto complainant and confirmed compromise as genuine. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person serving in a responsible position in a Public Sector Bank. The wife of the petitioner is also present before this Court today. She confirmed that it was a usual fight between the husband and wife and they are now living together happily. During the fight, the de facto complainant intervened, fell down. The issue has now been amicably resolved between the de facto complaint and petitioner.

¶52

6.Considering the submission and under such circumstances, no useful

¶53

purpose would be served by keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

CRL OP No. 31920 of 2025

¶57

the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC

¶58

641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.195 of 2025,on the file of the first respondent police.

¶59