U.Hareharan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
CRL OP/17545/2026 · 2026-07-08
D Bharatha Chakravarthy
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 48377 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 48377 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026
1. U.Hareharan
2. M.A.Kevin Ronald S/o F.Amrose Ravi, NO.4, 25th Street Poombuhar Nagar Extn, Kolathur, Ambattur, Tiruvallur. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police V6, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.116 of 2026
2. S.Prem Kumar ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to FIR No.116 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Illiyas For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the FIR No.116 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent Police for alleged offence under Section 303(2) of BNS, on the ground of compromise between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further. 2. The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments. 3. The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that the de facto complainant had parked his Van and the battery in the said Van was missing. Subsequently, it was found that the accused had stolen the same. They are now said to have ironed out their differences between them. 4. Thus, it can be seen that this matter is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4
5. Accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No.17545 of 2026 stands allowed. The FIR No.116 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent stands quashed. 08-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No PVS To
1. The Inspector of Police V6, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.116 of 2026
2.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. PVS CRL OP No. 17545 of 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis