Manjula v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners/accused facing trial in C.C.No.2387 of 2025 for offences under Sections 318(2), 336(3) & 340 of BNS, 2023, had filed this quash petition.

2.The case against the petitioners is that the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 30.06.2025 stating that she is residing in the first floor and on the ground floor, her brother-in-law and brother of her husband's family are residing. On 14.03.2025 at about 11.am. the petitioners came to their house claiming that they are from Suraksha Company Agent and they had a gas instrument (Indane Cylinder Checking Machine) to measure the gas in the cylinders. They collected a sum of Rs.7,600/- from her, likewise from her brother-in-law, another Rs.7,600/- was collected and informed that within two days, they would come back and hand over the bill. Later, after two days, when she was contacted, their mobile phones were switched off. When the defacto complainant went to the gas agency and requested the bill, they informed that they had not sent any representatives. Hence, she gave a complaint and case registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing a witnesses before XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, which was taken on file in C.C.No.2387 of 2025. Page3 of 11

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially working in the gas agency and later they were sent out of the employment. According to the petitioners, it is the gas agency that has to pay the defacto complainant. In any event, now the issue had been resolved and compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on an earlier occasion, he was directed to verify the antecedent of the petitioners and informed that there are no cases against them. Now, the case is at trial stage and further, submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners and in this regard, a joint compromise memo entered into between them, which is scanned and extracted hereunder: Page4 of 11 Page5 of 11 Page6 of 11 Page7 of 11 Page8 of 11

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

8.The petitioners, the de facto complainant/R2 and another victim namely Parthasarathy appeared before this Court through Video conferencing and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by N.Sivakumar, Inspector of Police, R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 83.

9.On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant/R2 and the another victim stated that they are willing to settle the dispute with the petitioners and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

10.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported Page9 of 11 in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the case in C.C.No.2387 of 2025, pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

11.In the present case, the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case 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 proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.2387 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.2387 of 2025 pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed and the terms of affidavits and joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. 10-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms Page10 of 11 To

1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶2The Inspector of Police, R3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.235/2025.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o7254oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. sms CRLoOPoNo.o7254oofo2026 10-04-2026 Page11oofo11

Page1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR 1. Manjula W/o. Arun, No.48, Balaji Nagar, 1st Cross Street,Keelkattalai, Chennai - 600 117. 2. Mahalakshmi W/o. Ganesh Kumar, No.48, Balaji Nagar, 1st Cross Street, Keelkattalai, Chennai - 600 117. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, R3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.235/2025. 2. Shanthi W/o Ramanujam, No.20/74, Gandhi Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in CC.No.2387 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Balaji Sankara Moorthy For Respondent(s): Mr. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for R1 MR.M. SARAVANAN FOR R2 Page2 of 11