IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. Jameena Mary @ Sabina

2. Vinithkumar 3. Manikandan

4. Senthil ... Petitioners Vs.

1.State rep. by Inspector of Police No.121, Kilpauk Garden K6, T.P.Chatram Police Station Jothi Amman Nagar, Shenoy Nagar Chennai – 600 030 (Crime No.216 of 2018)

2. B.Kamatchi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to quash the FIR in Crime No.216 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Sudhakar for Mr.J.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.216 of 2018, dated 28.04.2018, registered for the offences under Sections 509 of IPC and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of the first respondent Police on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant is that she received false calls in her mobile phone. Further, she received inappropriate messages and her mobile was linked to wrong websites portraying her in a very bad manner. On enquiry, she came to know that the first petitioner has given her details to the second petitioner and his friends/third and fourth petitioners to engage them in the inappropriate activities. Hence, the above FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the de facto complainant would submit that now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and they have also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect.

4. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/2nd respondent were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners and by Ms.R.Janaki, W.S.I., K6, T.P.Chatram Police Station, Chennai.

5. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent police submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while the investigation 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. The 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 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./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.

8. In the present case, the offences in question are purely 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.

9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report registered against the petitioners in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the