Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53430 (MAD)

Keerthana D/o. Balusamy v. Inspector of Police

2026-06-05

M Nirmal Kumar

body2026
ORDER : M. Nirmal Kumar, J. The petitioners facing trial in C.C.No.6620 of 2025 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 324, 120B & 452 IPC filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant’s son Rajasundar after completing his Bachelor Degree in B.E. from Ramakrishna College working at Bangalore in a Private Limited Company. During his son’s college days, Balusamy’s daughter Keerthana from Udumalai studied B.Tech from Krishna College at Covai Pudhur. My son and Keerthana became friends through Keerthana’s friend Sanjay, further, the friendship between them later developed into love and both loved each other for past two years. Due to difference of opinion for past six months, they have not meet and talk with each other. Since Keerthana is going to get marry with another person based on her family’s decision, Keerthana informed my son during May 2022 that we cannot marry each other, even if they both get married her parents will not accept it. Hence, my son understanding her situation, has not contacted for past six months. Later on 02.07.2022 Keerthana contacted my son and informed that we will meet each other one last time and asked my son to come from Bangalore to handover her documents. Based on her words, my son on 09.07.2022 came from Bangalore and stayed in Kotta lodge at Covai Rajaveedhi and waited for Keerthana. Around 01.00 p.m. Keerthana along with her henchmen based on their pre-plan trespassed into my son’s room and attacked him heavily, a person came with her with unparliamentary and abusive words with an intention to murder attacked my son’s face & lips. Then the other three persons kicked my son at his chest & Stomach and grabbed my son’s laptop, cellphone, ATM card and licence. Later they instructed Keerthana to give false complaint before All Women Police Station (West) that my son had raped her. Based on her complaint, police arrested my son and informed me. During visit he informed the above information that Karthik Prabhu along with three unknown persons attacked him. Hence, this complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in crime No.215 of 2022, thereafter final report filed which was taken on file in C.C.No.6620 of 2025. Now, the case is at trial stage. Hence, this complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in crime No.215 of 2022, thereafter final report filed which was taken on file in C.C.No.6620 of 2025. Now, the case is at trial stage. On the intervention of the well-wishers and friends, the petitioners and the defacto complainant decided to compromise the dispute between them and the defacto complainant has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners and in this regard, compromise entered between them and they produced a joint memo of compromise, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: 4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on complaint, FIR registered, charged sheet filed and taken on file in C.C.No.6620 of 2025 by Judicial Magistrate V, Coimbatore and further, submitted that though in respect of this case, 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 trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 7.The petitioners 2 to 5 appeared in person and the first petitioner appeared through Video conferencing and the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared in person before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. 8.On enquired by this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant stated that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 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. 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 petitioners and the second respondent 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 petitioners in C.C.No.6620 of 2025. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.6620 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-V, Coimbatore, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.The affidavit and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.