Madras High CourtCRL OP/6587/2026allowed

V.S.Gopala Krishnan v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-03-27Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.4840 of 2026 V.S.Gopala Krishnan ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, M4, Red Hills Police Station, Chennai, Suburban Police, Cr.No.195 of 2007.

2. Vidyalakshmi ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the records in PRC.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District and to quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T Mr.S.L.Venkatesan for R2

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

2.The petitioner / accused is facing trial in P.R.C.No.9 of 2011 for the charges under Sections 365, 366 and 417 of the I.P.C.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defactocomplainant are relatives. On 23.12.2006, the petitioner allegedly took the defacto-complainant for a drive in a Tata Sumo Car. However, he forcibly took her to a distant location in Bangalore, where they lived together. He also took her to various places including Tirupathi, on the promise of marriage. Since, the petitioner had failed to marry her, a complaint has been lodged. Now charge sheet has been filed and witnesses LW.1 to L.W.10 were examined. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto-complainant were both majors and had a consensual relationship. Subsequently, the defacto-complainant moved on, married another person and is now living a settled and happy life.

The defacto-complainant has now come forward to compromise and has agreed to withdraw the complaint. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant's father, a case has been registered in Cr.No.195 of 2007. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. He further submitted that the defacto-complainant is now a major and states that she is peacefully residing with her husband and two children. Hence, she seeks to withdraw the complaint.

6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. By

passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7.A Joint Compromise agreement, dated 04.03.2026, has been filed before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed separate affidavit before this Court and also filed the Joint Compromise Memo. The consensual and conscious relationship confirmed and both now agreed to have their own way of life. 8.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 @ 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.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

9.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in P.R.C.No.9 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, is quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

27-03-2026 ep To

1. The Inspector of Police, M4, Red Hills Police Station, Chennai, Suburban Police, Cr.No.195 of 2007.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

and Crl.M.P.No.4840 of 2026