Criminal proceedings can be quashed based on voluntary compromise if disputes are private in nature and do not involve serious societal offenses.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 386 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police Station, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. On 09.12.2025 at about 3:30 p.m., the 1^st Petitioner, along with her associates, allegedly trespassed into the residence of the 2^nd respondent and demanded repayment of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- purportedly borrowed by the 2^nd respondent from the 1^st Petitioner. Upon such demand, the wife of the 2^nd respondent informed them that the said amount would be repaid within one week. However, notwithstanding the said assurance, the 1^st petitioner and her associates, while leaving the premises, allegedly took away the auto belonging to the 2^nd respondent by use of force and without his consent. Based on these allegations, F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.386 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 303(2) & 49 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent are known to each other and they have now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 24.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by Mr.T.Simson, SSI, 1^st respondent Police Station, Tirunelveli District. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR against the petitioners. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

5. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of

1 2012 10 SCC 303 wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

6. The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a civil or private character, rendering the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the limitations on such power, holding that offences of a serious nature, particularly those involving mental depravity, grave violence, or offences against society at large, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, even if the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Court further cautioned that while examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the acc