IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Jadav Umakantha Rao, S/o.Bhavani Sanker Rao residing at Plot No.1-1-241/305, 2^nd Floor, Road No.3N, Bhavani Nagar Colony, Near Kushaiguda, Hyderabad – 500 062.

Petitioner Vs

1. The State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, Central Crime Brnch, EDF-1, Wing – 2, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

2.S.Logananthan, S/o.Selvaraj No.42, Bharathi Avenue 2^nd Street, 3.S.Kishore, S/o.Srinivasan Representing M/s.Wowtruck Technologies Private Limited, Having its then office at 6th Floor, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai – 600002.

[Third respondent impleaded as per the Order of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2026 dated 12.01.2026 by ADJCJ]

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.34 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.V.Sai Srujan For Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor – R1 Ms.L.Sheela Devi – R2 Mr.V.Veerarghavan – R3

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.34 of 2024 for the offences under sections 120B, 408, 420, 477A of IPC on the file of the first respondent.

2. The petitioner is A2 in this case. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner and other accused stating that they had created fake customers and vendors using forged documents and entered into fictitious service agreements to generate false transportation demand and manipulated GST, on-boarding documents and emails to make fake transportations appear real and caused a loss of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to the company by siphoning off funds meant as advances to fake vendors.

3. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that there is a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the third respondent and that the third respondent has no further claim or subsisting dispute against the petitioner and hence, the criminal proceedings pending in Crime No.34 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024 on the file of the first respondent may be quashed. In this regard, the petitioner had also filed a Joint Compromise Memo dated 12.01.2026 entered into between the petitioner and third respondent.

4. The petitioner and the third respondent were present before this Court at the time of hearing and the petitioner was identified by his counsel.

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 submitted that though the parties have 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.

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 Gujrat, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, 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