Abilash v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Abilash ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore City.

Crime No.334/2023

2. Janani ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records in C.C. No.1817 of 2025 pending before the Additional Mahila Court at Coimbatore and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Ramajayam For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.R.Krishnan for R2

ORDER

The petitioner/accused, facing trial in C.C.No.1817 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court at Coimbatore, for the offences under Section

354C IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, has filed the present quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.11.2023 at about 07.00 hours, when the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant was taking bath in the bathroom which was located in the common place behind the house of the de facto complainant and the petitioner, she noticed that someone was capturing videos of her, through a narrow opening from the toilet adjacent to the bathroom. On seeing that, she screamed and went to her house and complained about the same to her mother. When her mother came to the spot, she found the petitioner running out of the toilet. When her mother and others enquired the petitioner about the same, he admitted and he assured that he will delete the photos.

Apprehending that the petitioner would have sent the videos to someone else, the de facto complainant and her mother took the mobile phone of the petitioner and approached the 1st respondent Police and lodged a complaint. Based on the same, the 1st respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.334 of 2023 as against the petitioner. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 354C IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner, which was taken on file in C.C.No.1817 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court at Coimbatore.

3.The case is at the stage of trial. Now, by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present quash petition on the basis of compromise.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have amicably settled the issues and thereby, they have compromised the matter and prays for quashing of the charge sheet.

5.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant is willing to withdraw the complaint lodged as against the petitioner and she is inclined to settle the dispute to buy peace. 6.Accordingly, the parties have filed a joint compromise memo, dated 10.06.2026, signed by both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant. The joint compromise memo is scanned and reproduced hereunder :

7.Today, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they are identified by Mr.U.Balasubramani, HC-2834, C1 Katoor Police Station, Coimbatore. The de facto complainant submitted that she is willing to compromise the matter and compound the offences against the petitioner, out of free will. 8.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 accused. 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.

9.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 accused. 10.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1817 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court at Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. The joint compromise memo filed by the parties shall form part of the records. 18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKN

To 1.The Additional Mahila Court Coimbatore.

2.The Inspector of Police Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore City.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

MKN 18-06-2026