Stephen Raj v. State Rep. by Its the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.21 of 2025 dated

19.08.2025 for offences under Section 69 of the B.N.S, 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police, has filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that petitioner and the second respondent were in a relationship since the year 2014. During the subsistence of the said relationship, the petitioner allegedly induced the second respondent into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage. Despite repeated assurances from the petitioner and his family members regarding the marriage, they ultimately reneged on their promise and the second respondent was subjected to physical abuse and assaulted by both the petitioner and his family members. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.21 of 2025 for offences under Section 69 of the B.N.S, 2023 against the petitioners.

¶3The case is at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶4Today, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this Court and their identity is confirmed by the first respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. Now they are not willing to further proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect.

¶5Under 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.

¶6This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.21 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioner.

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

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, AWPS Peravallore, Chennai.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. grs

12.06.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Stephen Raj .. Petitioner Versus 1. State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, AWPS Peravallore, Chennai. 2. Angel Rekha .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records of the proceedings in Cr.No.21 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Ms.M.Kokila, for R2