CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 1. Bharath.J S/o. Jaganathan M, 4/9, Vivekandha Street, Ambal Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600032. 2. K.Rajendran S/o. Kalamegam, No. 1/187-1-1-1, Meenachi Amman Nagar, Surya Nagar Extension, Pudur madurai North, madurai- 625007. 3. K.Susila W/o. S.Karuppiah, No.1/16, Namanur, Sivaganga - 630553. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The state of TamilNadu Rep, The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode. 2.R.Kumar Ganesa Perumal, @ Ganesan 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 S/o. Ramachandran, B-23, Yamuna Homes, 3rd Floor, 4th Street, Adyar, Chennai - 600020. Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed underSection 528 of BNSS to call for the records in FIR in Crime No. 2/2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioners . For Petitioner(s): Mr. P.G.Santhosh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.2 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent for the offences under sections 120B, 419, 420, 468,471 and 351(2) of IPC. 2. The complaint has been given by the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant. The crux of the allegation is that the accused persons in conspiracy, had created fraudulent documents, including a bogus general power of attorney and forged the documents, which were used to register an agreement for sale. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 3. The defacto complainant Mr. R. Kumar Ganesa Perumal @ Ganesan and the petitioners are present before this Court at the time of hearing. The defacto complainant stated before this Court that he has compromised the issue with the petitioners and he does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings. He has also filed a Memorandum of Compromise entered between himself and the petitioners to that effect. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 5. The allegation in the complaint is mainly with regard to civil dispute involving land transactions. The defacto complainant himself appeared before this Court and stated that he is not willing to proceed with the criminal proceedings. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 6. The main issue that requires for 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 Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of 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 it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 7. In the present case, the offences in question are purely civil in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent and 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 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 First Information Report registered in Crime No.2 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report registered in Crime No.2 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed. The Memorandum of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 28-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No mrp 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 To The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode. (In Crime No. 2/2025) 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR J. mrp CRL OP No. 23068 of 2025 28-08-2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis