CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 and CRL.MP.No.21950 of 2025 G.Dinesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector of Police Otteri Police Station Chennai-12 2. Priya ..Respondent(s) To call for the records vide proceedings in Cr.No.404 of 2019 dated 21.06.2019 and pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Annaamalai For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 ORDER The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 404 of 2019 for the offence under Section 341, 294(b), 323, 506(1) r/w. Section 4 of TNPWH Act, has filed this quash petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 10 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant are neighbours and that there exists a land dispute between them. On 21.06.2019, at about 10.30 a.m., pursuant to petitioner's complaint, Corporation employees visited the second respondent’s house and enquired about the land dispute. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner allegedly picked up a quarrel with the second respondent, abused her in filthy language, pushed her, and also abused her mother. Subsequently, the second respondent lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant 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, the second respondent filed an affidavit, dated 18.03.2026 expressing no objection for quashing the FIR, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 10 4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint of the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 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. 7.The petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant appeared before this Court and were duly identified by the counsel and the respondent Police. 8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page7 of 10 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner in Crime No.404 of 2019. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page8 of 10 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 404 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.The affidavit, dated 18.3.2026 filed by the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page9 of 10 To 1. The Inspector of Police Otteri Police Station Chennai-12 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 __________ Page10 of 10 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS CRL OP No. 31782 of 2025 25-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis