K.Surendra Kumar v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

Page1 of 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP Nos. 16214 and 16060 of 2026 CRL OP No. 16214 of 2026 K.Surendra Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai District.

¶2C.G.Senthilkumar ..Respondent(s) To call for the records pertaining to Crime No.324 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): M/s.A.Divya For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Page2 of 14 CRL OP No. 16060 of 2026

¶1C.G.Senthil Kumar

¶2G.S.Priyadharshini

¶3C.S.Yeshwanth ..Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai District.

¶2K.Surendra Kumar ..Respondent(s) To call for the records pertaining to Crime No.323 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Ashok Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in Crime Nos.324 of 2025 and 323 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, to quash the criminal proceedings. Page3 of 14

2.The case of the prosecution is that Priyadharshini had borrowed money from Surendra Kumar. It is alleged that on 24.08.2025 Surendra Kumar went to the residence of Priyadharshini and demanded repayment of the borrowed amount. Priyadharshini requested additional time to repay the debt. This allegedly led to a quarrel between them, which escalated into a physical scuffle. During the course of the incident, it is alleged that both parties abused each other in filthy language and exchanged blows. Pursuant to which, separate FIRs came to be registered against each other. Thus, the matter arises out of a case and counter-case between the parties.

3.The learned counsel for either of the parties submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably. In view of the settlement, they have filed Joint Compromise Memos, which were scanned and reproduced hereunder: Page4 of 14 Page5 of 14 Page6 of 14 Page7 of 14 Page8 of 14 Page9 of 14 Page10 of 14 Page11 of 14

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that based on the complaint of both parties, FIRs came to be registered. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

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

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

¶7Both the parties appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel and the respondent Police.

8.On interaction by this Court, both the parties stated that they have amicably settled the dispute between them and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same.

Page12 of 14

9.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 parties. 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.

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the parties 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 in Crime Nos.324 of 2025 and 323 of 2025 before the first respondent Police. Page13 of 14

11.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos.324 of 2025 and 323 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent, are quashed.

12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the parties for compromising the offences shall form part of the record. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To

¶1The Inspector of Police Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page14 of 14

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS 25-06-2026