Pramod @ Sameer Khan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.258 of 2025 on the file of Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur City against the petitioner, on the basis of the Page2 of 6 compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

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

¶3Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.258 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(j), 64(2)(m), 77, and 352 (3) BNS, 2023 r/w Section 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of a family dispute and that on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect have also been filed.

5.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.K.Natesh Pandi, counsel for the 2nd respondent. Page3 of 6

¶6On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7.Learned Government Advocate (Criminal 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.

8.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 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 Page4 of 6 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.

9.In the present case, the offences in question are purely 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 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 F.I.R.No.258 of 2025 on the file of the First Respondent Police, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.258 of 2025 pending on the file of the First Respondent Police, is quashed as against the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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. Page5 of 6

¶11The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 27-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kas To.

¶1The Inspector of Police Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur City. Crime No.258 of 2025.

¶2The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 CRLoOPoNo.o34205oofo2025 A.D.JAGADISHoCHANDIRA,oJ. kas CRLoOPoNo.o34205oofo2025

27.01.2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Pramod @ Sameer Khan S/o Sasi, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur City. Crime No.258 of 2025. 2. Mahek Khan D/o Fenoz Khan ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to call for the records and to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.258 of 2025 on the file of Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur City against the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Rajagopal For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) – R1 Mr.K.Natesh Pandi - R2