IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.12.2025

CORAM:

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

1. Mohammed Khalid

2. Mohammed Rafi ... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by, The Inspector of Police,

G-1, Vepery Police Station,

Chennai.

(Crime No.228 of 2024)

2. Nazia ... Respondents

P RAYER : Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.228 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the

first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Praveen Kumar

For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.228 of 2024, pending on the file of the first respondent, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

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

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No. 228 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners and others, for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 109 of the BNS and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, which is now sought to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, he seek to quash the First Information Report pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by Mr.K.Mahalingam, SI, G1 Vepery Police Station.

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.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on 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 offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

8. 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. (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.

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 pending against the petitioners in Crime No.228 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent, in exercise of its