SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
V.Tamilselvan – Appellant
Versus
The State by, Station House Officer, Muthialpet Police Station, Muthialpet, Puducherry. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | C.C.No.1271 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Sathish
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, Mr.A.Alexander, Mr.Vinoth Ravi

Courts can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if such offences are purely individual in nature without affecting public interest.

Headnote:The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1271 of 2025 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise. The Court examined the nature of the offences alleged (Sections 406, 420, and 506(ii) IPC) and determined that they were personal disputes that could be settled by compromise. The findings concluded that no overriding public interest was affected, leading to the quashing of the case. The main issue was whether non-compoundable offences could be quashed due to a compromise, guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. The final outcome of the petition allowed the quashing of the proceedings.

Table of Content
1. filing criminal petition based on compromise. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. court reviewed submissions of both parties. (Para 2 , 5)
3. legal reasoning regarding compromise in non-compoundable offences. (Para 7 , 8)
4. quashing proceedings based on individual nature of offences. (Para 9 , 10)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1271 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Puducherry, 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.52 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance of as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a money dispute and that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel.

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 Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) 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 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 case, 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 proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1271 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Puducherry, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section

528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1271 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Puducherry, is quashed as against the petitioners.

11. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top