M.Karthick v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M.Karthick ..Petitioner Vs

1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.235 of 2025)

2. Senbhagavalli ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in connection with Crime No.235 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai and quash the same in respect of the petitioner/sole accused herein.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Kartik For Respondent :

Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For R1 Mr. M.Vignesh Babu For R2

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.235 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai in respect of the petitioner/sole accused herein.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/second respondent, a case in Crime No.235 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed anticipatory bail petition before the District Court and at that time, the case was referred for mediation and the issue/dispute was amicably settled between the parties. The learned Principal Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail in the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10697 of 2025, recorded that the dispute/issue between the petitioner and the de facto complainant had been amicably resolved in the Mediation Centre and the settlement agreement dated 08.01.

2026 also produced. In the agreement made before the Mediation Centre, the second respondent/de facto complainant had given an undertaking that whenever the petitioner/accused files quash application, she will give no objection for the same. As such, now the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. The petitioner and the de facto complainant had filed affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo to the effect that the de facto complainant agreed to quash the First Information Report.

3.

The petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent

appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. 4.

On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and received the amount by cash, through RTGS, GPay and IMPS and also she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant and the identity is not disputed.

6.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.

Considering the submission made on either side and that the issue/dispute has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the second respondent and also considering the joint memo of compromise filed by both parties, 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.235 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioner/sole accused, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. 8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.235 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed as against the petitioner. 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. 09-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRM

To

1. The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

SRM 09-03-2026