Rajeshwari v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P. No. 10634 of 2026

1. Rajeshwari

2. Iyappan

3. Arumugakani

4. Anushiya

5. Dharshini

6. Michael Rajadurai ..Petitioners Vs.

1.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore.

2.

Vinoth Kumar 3.

Gayathri ..Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in C.C. No. 397 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore (Crime No. 306 of 2025) and quash the same. For Petitioners ::

Mr.M. Manibalan For Respondents ::

Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.R. Saravanapandian for R2 1\10

O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 397 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2025, the petitioners, who are family members of the 3rd respondent herein, namely, Gayathri, are said to have abducted the said Gayathri in a car bearing Registration No.TN 65 AD 4467 and kept her within the confines of their house as she had married the de facto complainant/2nd respondent, a widower with two daughters, which was not acceptable to the petitioners. On the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent, a case in Crime No. 306 of 2025 was registered by the 1st respondent Police for the offence under Section 140(3) of BNS, 2023. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 13 witnesses and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 397 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the de facto complainant submitted that the petitioners are none other 2\10

then family members of the 3rd respondent and on the advice of elders and well-wishers, the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits by the 1st petitioner (signed by all the petitioners) and the de facto complainant and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed.

4.

The petitioners, the de facto complainant/R2 and the victim girl/3rd respondent appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.M.Surendran, SI of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

5.

On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners, that the victim girl/3rd respondent is living with him, that the parents of the victim girl\3rd respondent have accepted their marriage and therefore, he is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same. 6.

The Joint Memo of compromise dated 17.03.2026 filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below:

3\10

4\10

5\10

6\10

7\10

7.

The Learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether offence 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 offence pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble 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 8\10

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 offence in question is purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 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 pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.397 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.397 of 2025 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, is quashed as against the petitioners.

11. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

05.06.2026 nv 9\10

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P. NO. 10634 of 2026 05.06.2026 10\10