IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and Crl.M.P.Nos.16152, 16423 & 18539 of 2025

1. G.Murugan

2. M.Meenakshi ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.23666 of 2025

1. M.Saravanakumar

2. V.Vidhya ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24012 of 2025 M.Raja ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.27053 of 2025 Vs.

1. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, W-28 All Women Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

2. XXX (Redacted) ... Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps.

Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the entire records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.29 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 registered by the first respondent as against the petitioners and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abdukumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sathish For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan for M/s.Pon Law Associates In Crl.O.P.No.27053 of 2025, For Petitioner : Ms.T.Kokila Vane Rajarathinam, for Mr.M.Sathish For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan for M/s.Pon Law Associates

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.29 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.27053 of 2025 has been arrayed as A1 in this case and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.23666 & 24012of 2025, who are respectively the parents, brother and sister-in-law of the first accused, have been arrayed as A2 to A5.

3. The allegations in the FIR are that the first accused, who become acquainted with the de facto complainant through a bike ride club, developed a relationship with her and on the promise of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. It is further alleged that the family members of the first accused had also assured the de facto complainant that the marriage would take place. However, later, the first accused refused to marry her and when the de facto complainant questioned the same, the accused abused her, threatened her with dire consequences and ill-treated her. Hence, based on her complain, an FIR was registered in Crime No.29 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296(b)

and 351(2) of BNS and the same is now sought to be quashed.

4. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.23666 & 24012 of 2025, submitted that there is absolutely no material to implicate the family members of the first accused and they have been unnecessarily roped into this case. The only allegation against accused

2 to 5 is that they agreed and assured that the first accused would marry the de facto complainant and except for the said allegation, there is no specific overt act attributed against them. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings pending against them.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.27053 of 2025 submitted that subsequent to the registration of the First Information Report, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant has been registered. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner has kept up his promise of marriage and hence, the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant submitted that the first accused, on the promise of marrying the de facto complainant, had physical relationship with her on several occasions and later, failed to keep up his promise. Therefore, in view of Section 69 of BNS, the first accused is liable to be tried. He further submitted that the family members of the first accused had also threatened and ill treated the de facto complainant.

7. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the first accused, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the marriage registration was effected only with an inten