Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.07.2026 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 1. Karthikeyan 2. Seenu 3. Vimala .. Petitioners Versus State Rep. by 1. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, Kilpauk Police District, Chennai – 600 007. 2. The Inspector of Police, W-5 All Women Police Station, Periamet, Vepery Range, Kilpauk Police District, Chennai – 600 003. Now Transferred to: The Inspector of Police, G.1, Police Station, Periamet, Vepery Range, Kilpauk Police District, Chennai – 600 003. 3. Anusuya .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and quash the F.I.R in Crime No.03 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent Police. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Babu For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for RR-1 and 2 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent Police for alleged offences under Section 69 of B.N.S, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 Anr.1 and other subsequent judgments. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 3. The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that de facto complainant and the accused were in a relationship and it was alleged that after promising to marry and having intercourse, the accused did not marry. Subsequently, pending the case, the parties have married and they are living as husband and wife. The de facto complainant submits that the case need not be proceeded with since the parties have ironed out the differences and have joined together and are living together. 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. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police stands quashed. 28.07.2026 Neutral Citation : no grs To 1. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, Kilpauk Police District, Chennai – 600 007. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 2. The Inspector of Police, G.1, Police Station, Periamet, Vepery Range, Kilpauk Police District, Chennai – 600 003. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. grs Crl.O.P.No.17829 of 2026 28.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis