CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 1. Appu @ Sugumar 2. Vijayalakshmi 3. Dilli Babu 4. Sathish Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The State rep by its Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. 2. Mahalakshmi ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and to quash the S.C.No.380 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, arising out of Crime No.506 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, (for R1) Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER This criminal original petition seeks to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.380 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, arising out of Crime No.506 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, 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 reported in (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments. 3. The brief facts leading to the instant case are that the second respondent/de facto complainant alleged a long-standing relationship between the first petitioner and herself, during the course of which physical intimacy took place. It is now submitted that both parties have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 since parted ways, married different individuals and are well-settled in their respective lives. The de facto complainant has submitted that, in the interest of all parties concerned, she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 4. Having perused the nature of allegations, it is evident that the dispute arose from a personal relationship. Since the parties have mutually parted ways and settled in life, this Court is of the view that the dispute is purely private in nature and hence, is a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise. 5. Accordingly, this Crl.O.P.No.17893 of 2026 stands allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.380 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, is quashed. 16-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No Sni https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Sni To 1.Th Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRL.OP.No.17893 of 2026 16-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis