IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.09.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.25212 of 2025 Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pallavaram, Chennai.

2. XXX (Redacted) ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.52 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and quash the proceedings pending as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramanian for Mr.V.Manimaran For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Ms.B.Sasikala

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.52 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2 alleging that the petitioner, who got introduced to the de facto complainant in a fitness center, on the false promise of marriage, forced her into physical relationship and later cheated her, a case in Crime No.14 of 2024 was registered for the offences under Sections 376(1), 417 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the final report was filed for the offences under Sections 376(1), 417and 506(i) of IPC and the same is pending committal on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, in P.R.C.No.52 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant amicably settled their dispute and hence, seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.52 of 2025. They have also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect.

5. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.J.Buvaneswari, WHC 1862, W2 Pallavaram, All Women Police Station.

6. On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the the criminal proceedings against him and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though 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 an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

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

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

10. A perusal of the First Information Report makes it very clear that the de facto complainant is neither illiterate nor a rustic person. Though it is alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant and later deceived her, a careful reading of the FIR carefully indicates that the sexual intercourse took place with the consent of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, it appears that their relationship become strained, they fell apart and as a result, the complaint came to be filed as against the accused. It is relevant to note that the de facto complainant is a fully grown woman who consented to the sexual intercourse and according to her, as the accused had promised to marry her, she continued to engage in sexual intercourse with him until their relationship bec