Arunrangarajan v. State, Rep By, The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Arunrangarajan .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State, Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode District.

(Crime No.45 of 2024)

3. Sujatha .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, compromise and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for RR-1 and 2 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner / accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner / accused is that based on a complaint lodged by the third respondent, stating that due to emotional differences and personal misunderstandings arising out of their relationship, the petitioner verbally abused and assaulted the third respondent, causing injuries. Thereafter, the respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2024 by the respondent Police against the petitioner. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed, which is currently pending trial as Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2/6

However, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely personal in nature, without any element of public interest. Through the intervention of elders, family members, and well-wishers, both parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and decided to put an end to the entire issue. The parties have entered into this compromise voluntarily without any coercion. Hence, praying for quashing the case on the ground of compromise.

3. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, an F.I.R in Crime No.45 of 2024 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. He further submitted that now the case is at the stage of pending trial. In the meantime, both the petitioner and the third respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues between them. 3/6

4. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of entire materials, it is seen that the case is pending trial. At this stage and also by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and decided to compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

5. Today, the petitioner and the third respondent are present before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mr.P.Vadivel, SubInspector attached to the first respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo to that effect duly signed by both of them.

6. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 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 Gurjarth and Another reported in 4/6

(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, is quashed.

12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Principal District Judge, Erode.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode District.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 6/6