CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 1. Vimal Joseph 2. S.Kumar 3. K.Sivakumar (his name is shown as siva in FIR) 4. G.Hariharan (his name is shown as hari in FIR) 5. Joseph Agustin (alais) James 6. R.Lingaselvam ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State by, The Inspector of Police, T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Pallikaranai District, Chennai-600 073. Cr.no.688/2023. 2. Ilaiyaraja ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, pleased to call for the records in Cr.No.688/2023 dated 19.11.2023 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Inspector of Police, T-12 Selaiyur Police and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Preethi Basker For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1 M/s.R.Pavithra for R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.688 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 147, 448, 294 (b) and 506 (1) of I.P.C. on the file of 1st respondent Police Station. 2.The contention of the petitioners is that there was some dispute over operation of the night club by the defacto-complainant. The defacto- complainant was running a night club taking lease from one Sundaram since 01.06.2023. The first petitioner also operated a fast food shop within a portion of the night club premises. The other petitioners visited the Fast Food joint at that time the defacto-complainant picked up a quarrel and disturbed his fast food business which got magnified and projected as though the petitioners assaulted and threatened the defacto-complainant. There was also some dispute with regard to change of lease right in running the Night club. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto- complainant was running a Night Club Hotel owned by one Sundaram. While Sundaram initially leased the Night Club business to the first petitioner from 01.06.2023 to 30.05.2025, later business handed over to the defacto- complainant on 01.06.2023. The first petitioner was permitted only to run a small fast food stall in the said premises. On 19.11.2023, first petitioner called other petitioners his friends who entered the fast food joint threatened and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 abused the defacto-complainant and forced him to move away from the Night Club business. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.688 of 2023 for the offences under Section 147, 448, 294 (b) and 506 (1) of I.P.C. 4.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 5.Today the petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by Mr.M.Muthuraman, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent filed Joint Compromise Memo dated 10.03.2026 before this Court. The dispute got magnified due to business dispute, who is to run the Night Club, all issues now resolved. 6.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report 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 @ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report on the file of the 1st respondent Police. 7.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.688 of 2023, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioners. 27-03-2026 ep https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Inspector of Police, T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Pallikaranai District, Chennai-600 073. Cr.no.688/2023. 2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. ep CRL OP No. 7235 of 2026 27-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis