IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Sadhasivam ...Petitioner Vs.

1. State rep. by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch – II, Chennai District.

Crime No.10 of 2025.

2. Periyasamy ...Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same with regard to the petitioner, based on compromise.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kavikannan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, APP, for R1 : Mr.S.Lingesh, for R2

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2025, pending against the petitioner, on the file of the first respondent Police, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/

2^nd respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, the aforesaid case in Crime No.10 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent-Police against the petitioner for the offences under Sections

420 and 34 IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent submitted that the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by the learned counsel on either side as well as by Mr.P.Chitti Babu, SI/CCB, Job racketing wing.

6. On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant/R2 stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, 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 petitioner. 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 case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner 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.10 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands disposed of and the First Information Report in Crime No