CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 Abhilash. T S/o Thayunni.M, Residing at No.3/109, Parakkattuchalla, Nanniode, Pattanchery, Palakkad, Kerala. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Sub-Inspector Of Police GRP-Hosur, GRP District. Crime No.23 of 2026. 2. Geetha W/o Vinoth Kannan, Residing at, No.826-A, 8th Main Road, HSR Layout, Bangalore. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records and to quash all the proceedings in FIR in Crime No. 23/2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police or pass any or such orders that this court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Ezhilarasan For Respondent(s): Mr.R. RAJASEKARAN Govt. Advocate (CRL. SIDE) for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 8 ORDER The Petitioner/accused in crime No.23 of 2026 for offences under Sections 75 of BNS and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (amendment) Act, 2002, filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioner is that on 22.02.2026, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and her son were travelled from Coimbatore to Carmelaram by Train No.16528 (Kannur – Yeshwantput Express), Coach S8, Seat No.68. At about 5.15 hours while the defacto complainant was sleeping, she felt someone placing a hand on her chest. Hence, lodged a complaint. Based on her complaint, the respondent police registered a case in crime No.23 of 2026 for offences under Sections 75 of BNS, 2023 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (amendment) Act, 2002. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/second respondent submitted that the petitioner was apologized and the defacto complainant also forgave his mistake. Now, the parties entered into compromise among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, a Joint Compromise Memo entered between them, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 8 4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for 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. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.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 and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.S.Samathanam, WSSI, Railway Police Station, Hosur. 8.On interaction by this Court, the 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 8 9.The 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. 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 defacto complainant 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.232026 on the file of the first respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 8 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.23 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. 12.The affidavits and the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sms To 1. The Sub-Inspector Of Police GRP-Hosur, GRP District. Crime No.23 of 2026. 2. The Public prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 8 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. sms CRL OP No. 11116 of 2026 05-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis