H.Purushothaman v. State Rep.By,

O R D E R The petitioner/accused in Crime No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered for the offences under Section 67 A of Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 76, 78, 351(3), 308(2) of BNS and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2025 has filed the present quash petition.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that in connection with a matrimonial proposal, the parents of the petitioner approached the family of the 2nd respondent and after mutual deliberation, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent got engaged on 23.02.2025 at Noor Mahal, Lalpet, Cuddalore. Subsequently, there was a change in the conduct of the petitioner and certain disputes and misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, causing mental harassment to the 2nd respondent, which led to the breakdown of the engagement and lodging of complaint as against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid.

¶3Heard the learned counsel for all the parties and perused the materials on record. Page3 of 9

¶4The case is at the stage of investigation. Since the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Affidavits and a Joint Compromise Memo have been filed.

¶5The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S. Asokan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶6On interaction by this Court, the de facto 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.

¶7It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated

27.04.2026 drawn on HDFC Bank, bearing No. 011019 has been handed over by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant towards betrothal expenses and the same has also been received by the 2nd respondent.

¶8The Joint Memo of compromise filed by the parties is scanned and reproduced below: Page4 of 9 Page5 of 9 Page6 of 9

¶9Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

¶10The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable 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 non-compoundable 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. Page7 of 9

¶11In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case. 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 Gujarat), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

¶12This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.129 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed.

¶13The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 19-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms Page8 of 9 To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o15537oofo2026 M.oNIRMALoKUMAR,J. sms CRL.O.P.oNo.o15537oofo2026

19.06.2026 Page9oofo9

Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P. No. 15537 of 2026 Purushothaman. H. ..Petitioner Vs. State by: 1. The Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Cr.No. 129/2025) 2. Sweetha ..Respondents Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Crime No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District and quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr. Harish Parvatham For Respondents :: Mr.R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.A. Arun for Ms.R. Gobika for R2 Page2 of 9