C.Balajipriyan v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR C.BalajiPriyan .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State by, Inspector of Police, W 19, AWPS Adyar, Chennai.

(Crime No.4 of 2025)

2. Dr.Suchretha .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the F.I.R No.4 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the F.I.R.

For Petitioners : Ms.Gomathiabirami For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Mr.S.Senthamizhan, for R2 1/10

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in Crime No.4 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 for offences under Section 85 of B.N.S, 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police, filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent husband and wife and there was matrimonial discord between them. Due to which, the 2nd respondent filed domestic violence complaint in D.V.C.No.83 of 2025 before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and also lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent Police and the same registered in Crime No.4 of 2025 for offence under Section 85 of BNS. He further submitted that on the advice of the well-wishers and senior members of the family, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent decided to amicably settle the issue and filed separate affidavit and joint compromise memo. He further submitted that the divorce petition by mutual consent, filed in H.M.O.P.No.2054 of 2026 ordered on 09.06.2026. As regards, D.V.C.No.83 of 2025, the 2nd respondent to withdraw the complaint on the next hearing i.e., on 18.06.2026. Further the 2nd respondent is not inclined to further proceed 2/10

with the present criminal case. He further submitted that as per the understanding, the petitioner has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner already paid Rs.20,00,000/- by way of demand draft in No.503694 dated 29.10.2025 drawn on ICICI Bank, St.Thomas Mount Branch, Chennai and thereafter paid Rs.22,50,000/- by way of demand draft No.473362 dated 30.03.2026 drawn on Central Bank of India, Alandur Branch and also paid Rs.22,50,000/- by way of demand draft in No.473369 dated 27.04.2026 drawn on Central Bank of India, Alandur Branch, Chennai. The two demand drafts kept in the safe custody of the Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court. Hence, he prays for quashing.

3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submits that on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.4 of 2025 for offence under Section 85 of BNS against the petitioner and the investigation is pending. He further submits that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent resolved the issue between them. Hence, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

3/10

4.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent reiterated the joint compromise and not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and confirmed the settlement arrived between the parties. 5.Today, the parties appeared before this Court and their identity confirmed by Ms.Roja.L, Women Police Constable 57031, attached to the 1st respondent Police Station. This Court interacted with both the parties and satisfied parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves without any compulsion. It is stated in the affidavit of the 2nd respondent that she received the entire amount and now she is not willing to further proceed with the case. For better appreciation, scanned reproduction of the Joint Compromise Memo is as follows: 4/10

5/10

6/10

7/10

8/10

6.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. 7.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.4 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioner. 8.The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court shall return the sum of Rs.45 lakhs deposited by way of two demand drafts bearing Nos.473362 dated 30.03.2026 and 473369 dated 27.04.2026, drawn on Central Bank of India, Alandur Branch, to the 2nd respondent with accrued interest if any.

12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs 9/10

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs To 1.The Inspector of Police, W 19, AWPS Adyar, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Copy To:

The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court.

12.06.2026 10/10