Parbathbhai v. State of Gujrath

CrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHICrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 2025andCrlMP(MD)No.1151 of 20251.Mohamed Parees Nauffil2.Musthiri Banu3.Mubarak Ali4.Hyder Ali5.Madina Begum6.Jawahar Ali7.Shajitha Begum... PetitionersVs1.The State of Tamil Nadu The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy City. [Crime No.20 of 2024]

N.Osheen Fazeena ... RespondentsThe Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.20 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 2025 For Petitioners: Mr.S.GokulrajFor R1: Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate(Crl.side)For R2: Mr.S.RamasundarvijayrajORDERThe petitioners are accused in Crime No.20 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police, which was registered for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 506(2) IPC. They have filed this application to quash the proceedings pending against them, on the ground that the issue has been amicably settled among themselves. 2. The case has been registered for the offence u/s 498(A) and 506(2) IPC of which, the offence u/s.498A IPC is non compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath [2017 9 SCC 641] and in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another [(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10], has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C [528 BNSS], to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine whether the crime in question is 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 2025purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. It has been repeatedly cautioned that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

Here, the prosecution case is the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant are husband and wife. Their marriage was conducted by her father by spending Rs.40 lakh by giving a car and 200 soverigns of gold jewels as dot. After the marriage the 1st petitioner often quarrelled with her and assaulted her. Therefore, she was driven to leave the matrimonial home. Even then the 1st petitioner was quarrelling with her. Hence the case came to be registered.

Since the conflict is between the private individuals and not affecting the Society at large, this Court entertained this petition, ordered notice and also directed the investigation officer to ascertain as to whether the compromise arrived between the parties is a voluntary one, without any threat or coercion. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 20255.The petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court today and submitted that on the intervention of the elders, they have amicably resolved their issue. To that effect, they have also filed a joint compromise memo dated 29.01.2025.

The investigation officer, after verification, has filed a report that the compromise arrived upon between the parties is genuine, without any threat or coercion.

This Court has verified the parties with their Aadhaar Cards and also verified as to the present status. The parties have expressed their willingness to solve the issue.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr.Aravind Barsaul etc., v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2008 AIR SCW 6814], while entertaining an appeal arising from the refusal to quash the proceedings registered for the offence u/s.498A IPC on the ground of compromise, has held as follows:-

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.1666 of 2025 Madhnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under Section 498-A IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.