Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 420, 506(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Now, learned counsel on either side submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise on 13.04.2026 and the petitioners have settled the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. Accordingly, in order to put an end to the episode, the de facto…
Judgment
CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page1 of 8IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMARCRL OP No. 10362 of 20261.Bashir Ahamed2.Nazir Ahamed..Petitioner(s)Vs1.State rep. by, Inspector of Police (Crime),T-4 Madhuravoyal Police Station, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Madhuravoyal, Chennai-600 095.
R.Sundaramoorthy..Respondent(s)Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR in Cr.No.182/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police (Crime), T-4 Madhuravoyal Police Station, Madhuravoyal, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):Mr.R.S.Mangala KumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1Mr.N.Ramesh for R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page2 of 8ORDERThe petitioners who are accused in Crime No.182 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) IPC, have filed the present quash petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant is a B.E. Graduate. The petitioners assured the de facto complainant and his father that they will get him a Government Job in PWD or Highways Department and thereby, demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Believing the words of the petitioners, the de facto complainant paid the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in six installments to the petitioners. However, later, the de facto complainant realised that the petitioners have cheated him by making fake promises. On the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the 1st respondent Police registered the case in Crime No.182 of 2026 as against the petitioners. To quash the same, the present petition has been filed.
Now, learned counsel on either side submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise on 13.04.2026 and the petitioners have settled the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. Accordingly, in order to put an end to the episode, the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed further against the petitioner. The parties have filed a joint memo of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page3 of 8compromise, dated 14.04.2026, which is scanned and extracted hereunder : https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page5 of 84. Today, the petitioners are present before this Court and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared through video conferencing. They are identified by Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, T-4 Madhuravoyal Police Station.
5. On enquiry, the de facto complainant submitted that he has received back the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the petitioners and hence, he is willing to settle the matter peacefully and compound the offences as against the petitioners. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page6 of 86. One important 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 accused. 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. 7. However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual and financial in nature and the parties themselves have now come forward to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. After exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page7 of 8in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the accused.
Operative part
8. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No.182 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties shall form part of the records. 18-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMKNTo1.The Inspector of Police (Crime), T-4 Madhuravoyal Police Station, Madhuravoyal Police Station, Madhuravoyal, Chennai-600 095.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10362 of 2026__________Page8 of 8M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.MKNCRL OP No. 10362 of 202618-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 420, 506(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.