IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2026 CORAM:

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

1. M.Tamilarasan

2. B.Sanjay

3. Murali Palani

4. G.Muthukrishnan

5. L.Ashok Kumar

6. Prasanth Munusamy ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, D-1, Tirutani Nagar Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.601 of 2025)

2. G.Mohan Babu ... Respondents P RAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.601 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent Police.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Prince Premkumar For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Assisted by Mr.M.S.Rajkumar For R2 : Mr.T.Karikalan

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.601 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police, pending against the petitioners, 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, the aforesaid case in Crime No.601 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners/accused, for the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(1) of the TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, which is now sought to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the second respondent/de facto complainant submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves and that a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect has also been filed. Hence, they seek to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioners.

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.S.G.Dhamodara Raju, SSI, D-1, Tirutani Nagar Police Station.

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.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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 offence, has to consider the issue as to whether an offence 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 offence 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 offence. 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 offence in question is 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