IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No. 26882 of 2025 Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Crime No.16 of 2024.

2. xxxxxxx (De-facto complainant) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to S.C.No.375 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thiruvallur District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan for Mr.A.Thamilselvan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

for R1 R2 – appeared in person

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.375 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur District for the offences under Sections 69 and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023.

2. The crux of the allegations in the charge sheet are that the father of the petitioner herein intended to marry the de-facto complainant to the petitioner/accused and that there was a cordial relationship developed between both the families. Due to that, both the petitioner and de-facto complainant fell in love and on the false promise, the petitioner had sexually intercourse with the de-facto complainant and as the relationship fell apart, there arose a dispute between them, which resulted in filing of the case in Crime No.16 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 127 and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023. On completion of the investigation, the first respondent-Police filed a charge sheet in S.C.No.375 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur District for the offences under Sections 69 and 318(2) of BNS, 2023.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent/de-facto complainant appeared before this Court and were identified by Ms.D.Nanthini, GR-II WPC, All Women Police Station, Gummidipoondi. This Court enquired the second respondent/de-facto complainant and she has stated that she has proposed to marry some other person, which will in fact pave way for herself and the petitioner to settle down in their life and hence, she is not willing to proceed with the Criminal proceedings as against the petitioner and has no objection to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.375 of 2025 as against the petitioner. Further, a Joint Compromise Memo dated 15.09.2025 has been filed duly signed by the parties and attested by their counsel.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

At the outset, this Court is of the view that in the offences of serious nature, compounding is not permissible, however, taking note of the allegations pressed in the charge sheet, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter on merits.

5. Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reads as follows :

'' Section 69 – Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc. Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.''

6. The very allegations raised by the de-facto complainant indicate that the petitioner/accused has deceived her by giving false promise of marriage and had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, he refused to marry her. Had it been a case, the prosecutrix restrained the accused for further developing physical relationship between them asking him to fulfill the promise of marriage, then it would have been a case of false promise of marriage. Therefore, it cannot be stated that only because of deception played by the p