Sandeep .S v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Sandeep .S S/o.Singaravelu, C-2, Block No. 34, 4th Floor, PWD Quarters, Todd Hunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
..Petitioner Vs
1. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police W-20 Saidapet All Women Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
Crime No. 22/2025.
2. P.Subhasree Sundari D/o.Pandian, Chettinadu Rani Meiyammai Hostel, No.25, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita praying to record this Joint Memorandum of Compromise and quash the FIR in Crime No. 22/2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-20, Saidapet, All women Police Station, Chennai, the 1st
respondent police herein and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr. V. Adith Narayan For Respondent :
Mr. A. Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Petition is filed to praying to record the Joint Memorandum of Compromise and quash the FIR in Crime No. 22/2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-20, Saidapet, All women Police Station, Chennai.
2. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent under section 69 of BNS 2023, a case was registered in Cr.No.22 of 2025 against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner promised to marriage the 2nd respondent and had relationship with her and later refused to marry her.
3. During the pendency of the Criminal proceedings, the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail and the matter was referred to mediation vide order of this Court dated 13.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30954 of 2025.
4. During the course of mediation, the parties have arrived at a
comprehensive settlement resolving all disputes and differences that had arisen between them and the terms of Settlement Agreement were reduced into writing by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 18.02.2026 duly signed by both parties in the presence of the Mediator.
5. The 2nd respondent has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the disputes have been settled and having regard to the same, a compromise have also been entered between the parties and continuation of further proceedings and their logical conclusion will certainly jeopardize the future of both the petitioner and the defacto complainant and no monetary consideration or financial benefit has been received by the 2nd respondent from the petitioner in connection with the above compromise. Hence, in view of the joint compromise, the FIR.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, he seeks to quash the aforesaid case as against the petitioner. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.
7. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the respondent police.
8. On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.
9. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent police submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether the offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
10. The main 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
11.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent 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 all the further proceedings against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.22 of 2025, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and in consequence thereof, all further proceedings pending against the petitioner pursuant to Crime No.22 of 2025, are quashed. 13.The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the
petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
07-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order msr To The Inspector of Police W-20 Saidapet All Women Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.
msr 07-05-2026