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) 24265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Ram R.V. – Appellant
Versus
Archana – Respondent
Crl.M.P.No.4055 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1, Mr.G.Raj Kumar for R2

Court may quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if they are purely individual in nature and do not violate public interest.

Headnote:The petition seeks to quash proceedings in C.C.No.20/2023 based on a compromise. The petitioner and the complainant settled the matrimonial dispute. The court examined if proceeding can be quashed for non-compoundable offences as per guidelines set by the Supreme Court. It was determined that offences are personal, and continuing with proceedings serves no public interest. Final outcome: The petition is allowed, and the proceedings are quashed.

Table of Content
1. filing based on a compromise in a matrimonial dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. discussion on the nature of the offences. (Para 7)
3. determining public interest in quashing proceedings. (Para 8 , 9)
4. final ruling on the petition. (Para 10)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20/2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner 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.1 of 2020 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 498A, 294(b), 509, 354, 506(i), 384 of IPC r/w Section 67 of the IT Act. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance of as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a matrimonial 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 petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.P.Lakshmi Sri, WSSI, W7, AWPS, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

6. On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she 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 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner in C.C.No.20 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, 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.20 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, is quashed as against the petitioner.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

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