Devaprasad@ Devaprasath v. The State Rep by Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner who is an accused in S.C.No.306 of 2025 facing trial for offence under Sections 417 & 376(1) IPC before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, has filed this Criminal Original Petition. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were colleagues working at HCL Company and developed a romantic relationship. It is alleged that on the promise of marriage, the petitioner entered into a physical relationship with the defacto complainant. During the course of their relationship, they lived together, engaged in financial transactions and the defacto complainant became pregnant. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, leading to the lodging of the complaint. On the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.42 of 2024 for offence under Sections 417 and 376(1) IPC. On completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent Police filed a charge sheet before the trial Court, listing LW1 to LW12 and the relevant documents.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant got married on 21.11.2024 and that a child was born out of their relationship on 12.10.2024. Hence, he prays for quashing.

¶4The case is at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶5Today the petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and their identities were confirmed by the 1st respondent police. This Court also Page3 of 4 enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed separate affidavits before this Court and have also filed a Joint Compromise Memo.

¶6Under 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 Suprme 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 proceedings in S.C.No.306 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

¶7This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in S.C.No.306 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpattu is quashed against the petitioner. 17-04-2026 AT Page4 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AT To:

1.The Sessions Judge Mahila Court Chengalpattu.

2.The Inspector of Police W-5, Selaiyur All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 17-04-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Devaprasad@ Devaprasath ..Petitioner Vs 1. The State Rep By Inspector of Police W-5, Selaiyur All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu District. Crime No. 42/2024. 2. Ancin Cristiana @ Ancin Krishtina ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in S.C.No. 306/2025 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court at Chengalpattu and to quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Mohan For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Ms.G.Gayathri for R2