IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1.Y.Ajith Kumar

2.Kalaivanan

3.Vijay

4.Naren @ Narendran

5.Balaji ... Petitioners -Vs-

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, B-8 Pullarambakkam police station, Pullaramabakkam, Tiruvallur - 602 023.

(Crime No.41 of 2020)

2.N.Anbu ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, to call for the entire records in connection with the case, F.I.R in Crime No.41 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Tamizh Selvan For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Rasu

O RDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.41 of 2020, pending against the petitioners, on the file of the first respondent police, 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. 41 of 2020 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 336 and 506(ii) of IPC.

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 First Information Report as against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they 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 (Crl.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 First Information Report in Crime No.41 of 2020 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.

The Fir