Maheswari v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.9044 of 2026

1. Maheswari

2. Balaraman .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.22 of 2026)

2. S.Sakthi .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records culminating in and to quash the Cr.No.22 of 026. For Petitioner : Ms.Sinega B N For Respondents : Mr.A.Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Mr.K.Magesh, for R2 1/5

ORDER

The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.22 of 2026 dated 24.01.2026 for offences under Section 194 of B.N.S.S, 2023, on the file of the first respondent Police, has filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the first petitioner, who is the elder daughter of the second respondent, borrowed jewels from one Kokila, the younger of the second respondent, to attend a function, but, returned to the second petitioner, who is the husband of the first petitioner. On the said issue, on 23.01.2026, the second petitioner had assaulted the said Kokila, the younger daughter of the second respondent, due to which, the said Kokila consumed acid and was taken hospital. She was declared dead on 24.01.2026. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.22 of 2026 for offences under Section 194 of B.N.S.S, 2023 against the petitioners.

3. The case is at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute 2/5

amicably among themselves.

4. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared virtually before this Court and their identity is confirmed by the respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. Now, they are not willing to further proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect.

5. 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 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., is inclined to quash the F.I.R.

6. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a 3/5

sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.22 of 2026, dated 22.04.2026 on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 5/5