High Courts can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences where parties reach a settlement, provided the dispute does not involve heinous crimes.

ORDER :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking quashment of F.I.R in Crime No.22 of 2025 dated 09.11.2025 for the offences under Sections 11 (1), 11(4) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant is that the daughter of the de facto complainant was studying in the school where the petitioner was working as a robotics teacher. Both of them used to contact each other over mobile phone. Suspecting that the petitioner had habits of consuming alcohol and smoking, she repeatedly warned her daughter not to communicate with the petitioner. In order to protect her daughter, the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint against him. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.22 of 2025 was registered for the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the daughter of the de facto complainant used to communicate the petitioner over phone for clarification of certain academic doubts. Other than that, there was no relationship between the petitioner and the daughter of the de facto complainant. However, the de facto complainant, having misconstrued their interaction, lodged a complaint as if the petitioner has sent some messages to her daughter. Subsequently, upon realizing that there were no obscene or illicit messages, she agreed to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that by mistake, the de facto complainant has given a complaint and later realising her mistake, she agreed to withdraw the complaint.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the case was registered against the petitioner.

6. The de facto complainant is present before this Court. She would reiterate the submission of her counsel.

7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

8. Perusal of records shows that the investigation of this case is pending. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

9. A consent affidavit has been filed before this Court by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and her counsel. The parties were present before this Court and they were identified by Ms.K.Sowntharya, WPC.62257, W1-Thousand Light AWPS and their respective counsel. This Court also enquired both the parties and is satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The relevant portion of the consent affidavit dated 08.12.2025 filed by the de facto complainant is extracted hereunder:-

“8. I further submit that for the well being of my daughter and her future prospects and also for the well being of the accused Akash, I wish to withdraw the case against the accused person Akash which was registered in Cr.No.22/2025 on the file of the respondent police and I submit my unconditional consent for no objection for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.22/2025 on the file of the Respondent Police”.

10. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the High Court should act with cauti