Kailash Mariappan Vs The State Rep. by Inspector of Police

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, 3rd Street, Ragavan Colony, Mettupalayam, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83.

¶12

2.Kanimozhi ...Respondents

¶13

Crl. O.P. No.2909 of 2026

¶14

Kanimozhi ...Petitioner

¶15

Vs

¶16

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, 3rd Street, Ragavan Colony, Mettupalayam, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. 2. Dr.Poonguzhali ...Respondents

¶17

__________ Page1 of 7

¶18

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

¶19

Crl. O.P. Nos.2907 and 2909 of 2026

¶20

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2907 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita t o call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.125/2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶21

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2909 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita t o call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.126/2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. In both Crl.Ops. For Kailash Mariappan and Dr.Poonguzhali Kailash : Mr.J.Paulraj For Kanimozhi :Mr.G.Meganathan For the Inspector of Police : Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present Criminal Original Petition s have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024, pending against the petitioners, on the file of the first respondent Police, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent in each of the cases.

¶24

2 . Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

Page2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

Crl. O.P. Nos.2907 and 2909 of 2026

¶28

3 . Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainants/R2,

¶29

cases in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 were registered on the file of the first

¶30

respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 447, 341and 506 (I) of IPC respectively.

¶31

4 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainants submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the First Information Reports as against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

¶32

5 . The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 in each of the cases appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.V.Sadasivam, SI, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

¶33

6 . On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainants stated

¶34

that they have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

Crl. O.P. Nos.2907 and 2909 of 2026

¶38

7 . Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent Police submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while these cases are pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

¶39

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 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 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.

¶40

9 . In the present cases, the offences in question are purely

¶41

Page4 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

Crl. O.P. Nos.2907 and 2909 of 2026

¶44

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 these cases 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 First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police , in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶45

10. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petition s stand disposed of and the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police are quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each 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.

¶46

11 . The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent in each of the cases for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

¶47

10-02-2026

¶48

Neutral Citation: Yes/No MRN

¶49

Page5 of 7

¶50

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

¶51

Crl. O.P. Nos.2907 and 2909 of 2026

¶52

To