Hemanth v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
1. Hemanth
2. Gnanammal
3. Narasimma Moorthy
4. Sonia
5. Dhilip Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State rep.by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Coimbatore South.
Cr.No.1/2025.
2. Jenifer ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records relating to Cr.No.1 of 2025, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who are A1 to A5 in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences under Sections 376(1), 313, 323 and 109 IPC, have filed the present quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that, while the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant were studying MBA at M/s.Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology, they developed an affair and had gone to the extent of having conjugal relationship on the assurance given by the 1st petitioner that he will marry the 2nd respondent after finishing the studies. Both of them got a job and on 06.07.2023, both of them went to a hotel and had physical relationship and when the de facto complainant complained about medical issues, on 23.08.
2023, the 1st petitioner forced the de facto complainant to swallow some pills to avoid pregnancy. Thereafter, they continued their relationship through WhatsApp. When the de facto complainant got a job in Coimbatore, the 1st petitioner asked her not to join the job and to stay with him at Bangalore. During that period, the 1st petitioner forced the de facto complainant to have physical relationship with him. When she insisted for marriage, he refused and there was a quarrel between them and on one occasion, the de facto complainant attempted to commit suicide by swallowing sleeping pills.
of the 1st petitioner agreed for marriage. On 29.06.2025, when marriage talks were going on, the parents of the 1st petitioner insisted for dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the parents of the de facto complainant expressed their inability to offer the same. Thereafter, when the de facto complainant and her relatives tried to contact the 1st petitioner and his family, they did not respond by giving excuses. Therefore, the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent Police. Based on the same, the respondent Police registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2025 as against the 1st petitioner, his parents (petitioners 2 and 3), his sister (4th petitioner) and her husband (5th petitioner).
3.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present quash petition accompanied with a joint compromise memo, dated 25.03.2026, filed by A1 to A5 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, stating that the parties have decided to resolve the dispute amicably and after several rounds of discussions, they have decided to buy peace and give a quietus to the issues. They have also filed individual affidavits to that effect. The said joint compromise memo is scanned and reproduced hereunder :
5.Today, the petitioners (A1 to A5) and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. The parties have expressed their willingness to compromise the matter and compound the offences pending against the accused. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are both major and educated persons. They knowingly had a conscious relationship, fully aware of its consequences. A marriage proposal was also mooted between them, but due to some reasons, the marriage could not proceed. It is ascertained that they have now arrived at a compromise on their own will and without any compulsion. 6.
One important 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 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 noncompoundable 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.
overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
7.However, considering the facts of the case, it can be seen that the offence in question is purely individual in nature and the parties themselves have now come forward to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. After exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme 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./Section 528 BNSS, is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 8.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case as against the petitioners in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties and the individual affidavits filed by the parties shall form part of the records.
18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN
To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Coimbatore South.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
MKN 18-06-2026