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) 17026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Sankar – Appellant
Versus
The State by, Inspector of Police, Killianur Police Station, Villupuram District. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No.109/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Ms.A.Kanimozhi

The court may quash non-compoundable offences pending criminal proceedings if they are purely individual in nature, not affecting public interest.

Headnote:The Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash proceedings based on a compromise under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C., regarding offences under IPC 294(b), 427, and 506(i). The court found the offences personal and lacking public interest, thus allowing the quashing of proceedings. This court considered whether non-compoundable offences can be quashed based on compromise, ultimately concluding no public interest was served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

Table of Content
1. proceedings quashed based on compromise. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. the necessity of judicial consideration on compromises. (Para 2 , 7)
3. determining the nature of offences and public interest. (Para 8 , 9)
4. final order on allowed application. (Para 10)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.109 of 2021, 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, the aforesaid case in Crime No.109 of 2021 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) of 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 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 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 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 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 Crime No.109 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent, 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 Crime No.109 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent, is quashed as against the petitioners.

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