BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.18552 of 2025 Puvish, ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep., By its the Inspector of Police,, Cyber Crime Wing (Ccd Iii), Madurai.

(Crime No.26 of 2024). 2. B.Balasubramanian, S/o.Bose, ... Respondents PRAYER :- To call for the records in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing (CCD III), Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioner / Accused Rank not known as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Arun Kumar, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.S.Sundaramoorthi

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

2. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is that the petitioner along with the other accused were engaged in online trading and believing their representations, the defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 16,17,399/-, after which he was cheated. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.26 of 2024 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC and 66D of the Information Technology (amendment) Act, 2008. Seeking quashment of the FIR, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent now resolved the dispute amicably. A Joint Compromise Memo dated

17.11.2025 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant are present before this Court in person and are identified by M/s.Ananthi, Women Head Constable, Cyber Crime Wing(CCD III), Madurai. The defacto complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 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 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 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 Gujarat², 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 Narayan³, 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

2 2017 (9) SCC 641 3 2019 (5) SCC 688 examining compromise quash petitions, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of t