Vignesh v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Vignesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, W-8, AWPS Thirumangalam, Chennai.

2. Xxxx, D/o.Udhayakumar, No.45/183, Kacherry Street, Gopisettipalayam, Erode, Tamil Nadu - 638 452.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, pleased to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.67 of 2025 against the petitioner pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Dinesh For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1 M/s.K.Karthikeyan for R2

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.67 of 2025 for the offences under Section 69 BNS, on the file of first respondent Police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defactocomplainant were preparing for UPSC exam. At that time they became friends and they were having combined studies. The defacto-complainant believed that the petitioner was having love affair with her, he will marry her and had consensual sexual relationship. Later, the petitioner got engaged to another girl and cheated the defacto-complainant. Hence, the case has been registered. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner not involved in any activities as alleged by the 2nd respondent and he was in relationship with the defacto-complainant. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, he prays for quashing.

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that based on a complaint given by the defacto-complainant a case has been registered in Crime No.67 of 2025 for the offences under Section 69 BNS. It is alleged that while the defacto-complainant and the petitioner were studying together for the UPSC exam, the petitioner promised to marry her and they became intimately close. However, he changed his mind and started avoiding the defacto-complainant citing her caste, colour and social status. Now

the investigation is going-on. In the meantime, both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues. 5.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 have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

6.Today the petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by Mr.J.Prabha, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent Police Station 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 Joint Compromise Memo before this Court, both petitioner and defactocomplainant major, educated, consciously having consensual relationship is not in dispute.

7.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.

8.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.67 of 2025, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed against the petitioner.

9.It is made clear that the above case cannot be quoted as disqualification against the petitioner, defacto-complainant in their future studies, competitive examination and employment.

27-03-2026 ep

To

1. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, W-8, AWPS Thirumangalam, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ep 27-03-2026