High Court · 2025

CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARCRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025 &Crl.M.P.Nos.18082 and 18089 of 20251. Rajivgandhi2. Vallarasu3. Mano4. PrathapPetitioners in Crl.O.P.no.26652 of 2025 Vs1. The State by, The Inspector of Police,R.K.Pet Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Cr.No.652/2024.2.KalaivaniRespondents in Crl.O.P.no.26652 of 2025 1. Arun @ Arun Prasad2. Madhan3. Gopi@Gopikrishnan1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 20254. MuraliPetitioners in Crl.O.P.no.26658 of 2025 Vs1. The State by, The Inspector of Police,R.K.Pet Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Cr.No.652/2024.2.RajivgandhiRespondents in Crl.O.P.no.26658 of 2025 PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2025Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act to call for the records in Cr.No.652/2024 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the same.PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.26658 of 2025Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act to call for the records in Cr.No.651/2024 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the same.Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2025For Petitioner(s):Mr.M.R.ElavarasanFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Vinothraja for R12/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Mr.Ragul Kausik for R2Crl.O.P.No.26658 of 2025For Petitioner(s):Mr.M.R.ElavarasanFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Mr.P.Venkatesan for R2C O M M O N O R D E RSince the issues involved in both the petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the cases in FIRs in Crime Nos.651 and 652 of 2024 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police for the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 of BNSS and under Sections under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNSS Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 respectively. 3. The allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners have driven the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners have attacked the defacto 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025complainants with wooden logs and threatened with dire consequences and abused with filthy language. Hence the complaints have been lodged and the Crime Nos. 651 and 652 of 2024 for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 of BNSS and under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 respectively have been registered against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners along with the second respondent in both the petitions have stated that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are residing in the same village and now, there is no problem existing between them and that they are living their life peacefully, therefore, they have amicably settled the issues between themselves and hence, seek to quash the FIRs.5. Mr.P.V.Rajendra Babu, S.I. Of Police, D4, R.K.Pet Police Station, Thiruvallur District was present before this Court and he informed this Court that the second respondent in both the petitions had approached him and informed him that they do not want to proceed further with the criminal case registered as against the petitioners. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 20256. The second respondent in both the petitions were also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the 2nd respondent in both the petitions and they stated that they seek to quash the criminal proceedings.7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while these cases are pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence 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 Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025the 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 it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 9. In the present case, the offence in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainants and quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in these cases 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 FIRs in Crime Nos.651 of 2024 and 652 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of BNSS Act. 9. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the cases in Crime Nos.651 and 652 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police, are quashed. The Joint Compromise Memos filed by the petitioners and the second respondent in both the petitions for compromising the offences shall 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25-09-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NossdTo1.The State by, The Inspector of Police,R.K.Pet Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Cr.No.652/2024.2.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, Madras7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR J.ssdCRL OP Nos. 26652 and 26658 of 2025 25-09-20258/8