Rajamurugan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.3142 & 3143 of 2026 Rajamurugan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, W 28, AWPS Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.14/2025) 2.A.Seetha

...Respondents

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records in PRC.No.221 of 2025 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai compromise and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.L.Prathap 1/6

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.221 of 2025 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3.

Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No. 14 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(iv) and 79 of BNS read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed the final report for the offences under Sections 75(2) and 79 of BNS read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, which was taken cognizance, as stated in the opening paragraph. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the de facto complainant submitted 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. 2/6

5.

The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.Nagammal, WSI, W-28 Kotturpuram All Women Police Station, R.A.Puram, Chennai-28.

6.

On 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 (Crl.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 noncompoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble 3/6

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. 9.

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 in P.R.C.No.221 of 2025 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 4/6

Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The proceedings in P.R.C.No.221 of 2025 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, is quashed.

11. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

23.02.2026 rpl To 1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, W 28, AWPS Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

rpl 23.02.2026 6/6