Allowed¶45

Arivalagan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Feb 2026CRL OP/35273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashal of FIR on compromise between parties; non-compoundable offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3) BNS 2023 and Section 28 Arms Act 1959; guidelines of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 applied; purely individual/personal dispute; no overriding public interest; jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS; conditional quashal with Rs.40,000/- costs to TNSLSA; Madras High Court, 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions disposed of with the FIR in Crime No.628 of 2025 quashed as against the petitioners, conditional on joint payment of Rs.40,000/- as costs to TNSLSA within two weeks; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed; affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to form part of the records. ¶45

Arivalagan Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioners, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

In view of the above, the Court is inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.628 of 2025 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature, involving a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent.

¶39

Key takeaways

Quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.ratio¶39
The FIR in Crime No.628 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police is quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners jointly pay Rs.40,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.), common order dated 09.02.2026 in Crl.O.P.Nos.35273 of 2025 & 1159 of 2026: Petitions under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR in Crime No.628 of 2025 (Mecheri Police Station, Salem; offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3) BNS 2023 and Section 28 Arms Act 1959) on the basis of a compromise between the petitioners and the de facto complainant (R2). Applying the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held the offences purely individual/personal in nature, that quashing would not affect any overriding public interest, and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings; the FIR was quashed as against the petitioners, conditional on joint payment of Rs.40,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Connected Crl.M.Ps. closed; affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise made part of the record.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.35273 of 2025 & 1159 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.24818 of 2025 & 701 of 2026

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025

¶8

1.Arivalagan 2.Sundararajan 3.Mugesh ...Petitioners Crl.O.P.No.1159 of 2026 Ranjith ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Salem District. (Cr.No.628/2025)

¶11

2.Raja ...Respondents in both Crl.Ops

¶12

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.628 of 2025 dated 09.10.2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mecheri police station, Salem for offences U/s.296(b), 351(3) BNS, 2023 and 28 Arms Act, 1959 as against the petitioners.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025

¶16

In both Crl.OPs.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ashok Kumar For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Kuberan

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

The s e Criminal Original Petition s have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.628 of 2025, pending against the

¶20

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.

¶21

2 . Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶22

record.

¶23

3 . Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, the aforesaid case in Crime No. 628 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959 .

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

the de facto

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025 4 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for

¶28

the de facto complainant 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 Report as against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

¶29

5 . The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.K.Govindaraj, SSI, Mecher Police Station, Salem District.

¶30

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

¶31

7 . Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on

¶32

behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account

¶33

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 3/6

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025

¶36

between parties.

¶37

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 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.

¶38

9 . In the present cases, 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 First Information Report in Crime No.628 of 2025

¶39

pending on the file of the first respondent police , in exercise of its 4/6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.35273 of 2025

¶42

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶43

10. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petition s stand disposed

¶44

of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The First Information Report in Crime No.628 of 2025 pending on

¶45

the file of the first respondent police is quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners jointly pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104, within a period of two

¶46

(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

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

¶48

09.02.2026

¶49

rpl

¶50

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶51

¶52