Harish v. The State Rep. By All Women Police Station,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Harish (m/37), S/o.Beemraj, D.No.7/41, Ramakrishna Nagar, 2nd Avenue Kalathu Medu, Near Wireless Station Road, Porur, Maduravoyal Circle, Chennai-600 116.
At present residing at:
37200 Paseo Padre Pkwy, APT 147, Fremont, California 94536, USA.
... Petitioner vs.
1.The State rep by All Women Police Station, Erode, Erode District.
(Crime No.2/2024).
2.Mrs.Shanmathi (f/33), W/o.Harish, Door No.94/7, Mohanakumaramangalam Street, Erode-638 011.
... Respondents Page No.1 of 12
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Cr.No.2/2024 dated 15.02.2024 in FIR No.2/2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.2 of 2024 for offence under Section 498(A) IPC on the file of the 1st respondent Police, filed this Quash Petition.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent married on 30.10.2017 and, out of their wedlock, they blessed with a child. Later, they got separated and thereafter, false allegations made against the petitioner's parents and sister as though the 2nd respondent subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty and false complaint lodged and FIR registered. He further submitted that, as regards his parents and sister, they filed quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.9353 Page No.2 of 12
of 2024 before this Court. This Court, finding that the family members of the petitioner unnecessarily included as accused and that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were mostly residing in USA and that a misunderstanding in the family life magnified, quashed the FIR against them by order dated 07.10.2025. He further submitted that during the pendency of the investigation, at the instance of the elders, family members and well-wishers, the issue between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent got resolved and the 2nd respondent was inclined to withdraw the domestic violence complaint in D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Erode. To that effect, the 2nd respondent filed memo before the Magistrate. Recording the same, the domestic violence complaint dismissed as withdrawn on 12.11.2025. Now, the petitioner produced affidavit deposed in USA since he is presently employed in California and the 2nd respondent filed affidavit and Joint Compromise Memo.
3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that it is the 2nd respondent who lodged a complaint Page No.3 of 12
against the petitioner and his parents and sister. Based on the complaint of harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry, FIR in Crime No.2 of 2024 registered against them and the investigation was pending. Later, this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner's parents and sister vide order dated 07.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.9353 of 2024. He further submitted that now the 2nd respondent appeared before the 1st respondent Police and produced affidavit and Joint Compromise Memo stating that the issue resolved between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent at the instance of the well-wishers and family members and that she is not inclined to proceed further with the complaint. He further submitted that primarily it is a matrimonial dispute with some criminal element. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/A1 is in the USA. Hence, appropriate order may be passed by this Court.
4.The 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and produced the affidavit and Joint Compromise Memo and submitted that the issue resolved between her and the petitioner and that she is not inclined to proceed further with the complaint. She also confirmed the withdrawal of the domestic violence complaint.
Page No.4 of 12
5.This Court interacted with the petitioner who appeared through the video conference from California and with the 2nd respondent who appeared before this Court in person. Both agreed that the issue resolved at the instance of the family members, elders and well-wishers. 6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the engagement of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent took place on 30.06.2017, thereafter, the marriage solemnized on 30.10.2017. After the marriage, on 28.12.2017, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent went to USA, where the petitioner is employed, thereafter they lived as husband and wife. On 12.07.2019, they were blessed with a baby. Thereafter, some misunderstanding arose, for which the 2nd respondent blamed her in-laws. On 16.11.
2019, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent came back to India, but the petitioner left the 2nd respondent and returned to USA. Later, the 2nd respondent and the child called back on 25.07.2021, and they again started living together. In fact, the 2nd respondent joined as a Teacher in Learn and Play Montessori School. On 27.01.2024, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent came back to India, and the 2nd respondent delivered a stillborn baby, due to which she mentally Page No.
upset. Thereafter, the misunderstanding again got magnified, and the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent Police. Finding that the petitioner had gone alone to USA on 04.02.2024, she lodged the complaint. From the interaction, it is seen that owing to the stillbirth of the baby, she mentally disturbed, and it is quite natural that during this period she developed a feeling that she had been neglected and that no one had taken care of her. At that stage, the petitioner, namely, her husband, left her and went to USA, hence, she lodged the complaint. It is seen that the petitioner only wanted the 2nd respondent to recuperate and get back to the normal course of life. Anyhow, now the issue resolved. Scanned reproduction of the Joint Compromise Memo is as follows: Page No.6 of 12
Page No.7 of 12
Page No.8 of 12
Page No.9 of 12
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., is inclined to quash the FIR. 8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent Police is hereby quashed against the petitioner. 05.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vv2 Page No.10 of 12
To 1.The All Women Police Station, Erode, Erode District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Page No.11 of 12
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 05.06.2026 Page No.12 of 12