Kailash Mariappan v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police

ORDER The present Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024, pending against the petitioners, on the file of the first respondent Police, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent in each of the cases.

¶2Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Page2 of 7

¶3Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainants/R2, cases in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 were registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioners, for the offences under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 447, 341and 506 (I) of IPC respectively.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainants submitted that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the First Information Reports as against the petitioners. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

¶5The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 in each of the cases appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.V.Sadasivam, SI, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

¶6On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainants stated that they have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same. Page3 of 7

¶7Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent Police submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while these cases are 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.

¶8The 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 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.

¶9In the present cases, the offences in question are purely Page4 of 7 individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent 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 First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

¶10Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand disposed of and the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.125 and 126 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police are quashed as against the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent in each of the cases for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 10-02-2026 MRN Page5 of 7 To

1.The Inspector of Police R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, 3rd Street, Ragavan Colony, Mettupalayam, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page6 of 7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. MRN Crl. O.P. No. 2907 and 2909 of 2026 10-02-2026 Page7 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl. O.P. No.2907 of 2026 1.Kailash Mariappan 2.Dr.Poonguzhali Kailash ..Petitioners Vs 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, 3rd Street, Ragavan Colony, Mettupalayam, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. 2.Kanimozhi ...Respondents Crl. O.P. No.2909 of 2026 Kanimozhi ...Petitioner Vs 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, 3rd Street, Ragavan Colony, Mettupalayam, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. 2. Dr.Poonguzhali ...Respondents Page1 of 7 Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2907 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.125/2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2909 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.126/2024 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. In both Crl.Ops. For Kailash Mariappan and Dr.Poonguzhali Kailash : Mr.J.Paulraj For Kanimozhi :Mr.G.Meganathan For the Inspector of Police : Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)