Ashok @ Ashok Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Ashok @ Ashok Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police W14 AWPS, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.

Crime No.8 of 2026 2.Anthony ..Respondent(s) To call for the records and quash the FIR pending investigation in Crime No.8 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, W14 AWPS Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Ponnivalavan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.V.Socrates for R2

ORDER

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in Crime No. 8 of 2026 for the offence under Sections 366, 342, 354A(2), 451 of IPC and Section 7 r/w and 8 Section 11(1) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, has filed this quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a pawnshop nearby the second respondent/complainant's house. The complainant has two daughters, including the victim herein, who is a minor aged 17 years. The petitioner took the victim girl to an isolated place where the petitioner tried to misbehave with her and asked her to do unwanted things. When the victim girl shouted, the petitioner dropped her near her house.

Subsequently, the second respondent, who is the mother of the victim, lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably.

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint of the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. On a perusal of the statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the victim girl categorically stated that the petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged incident. She further stated that the Police informed her that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and asked her to narrate the incident. However, she clearly replied that no such incident had occurred, whereupon the Police left the place. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7.The petitioner, the victim and the second respondent/de facto complainant appeared before this Court and they were duly identified by their respective counsel and respondent Police.

8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/defacto 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.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 petitioner. 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.

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner 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 the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.8 of 2026. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 8 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent, is quashed.

12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.

25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To 1.The Inspector of Police W14 AWPS, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.

Crime No.8 of 2026

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

PVS 25-06-2026