Boobalan in F.I.R)6.Manikandan E(Wrongly mentioned as Manigandan instead of Manikandan in FIR)7.Durairaj v. The State

Crl.O.P.No.4397 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.02.2026CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRACrl.O.P.No.4397 of 2026andCrl.M.P.Nos.3122 & 3123 of 20261.Chozan2.Viji@ Vijayan3.Perumal4.Thirumal M5.Boobalan(Wrongly mentioned as Poopalaninstead of Boobalan in F.I.R)6.Manikandan E(Wrongly mentioned as Manigandan instead of Manikandan in FIR)7.Durairaj ...PetitionersVs.

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Anakkavoor Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.318 of 2023.

Karunaneethi ...RespondentsCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No. 232 of 2023 on the file of the 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4397 of 2026 Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyar and quash the same as against the petitioners concerned. For Petitioners: Mr.M.Mukilvannan for M/s.Sudha RamalingamFor R1: Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThe present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 232 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyar. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No. 318 of 2023 was registered on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 506(1) and 447 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed the final report for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 506(i) and 447 of IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4397 of 2026have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. 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 offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4397 of 2026compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. 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.