IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.320 and 371 of 2026 CRL OP No. 595 of 2026

1. Liyas Tamilarasan

2. Elumalai

3. Malarkodi

4. Nancy .. Petitioners Vs

1. The State rep by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Selaiyur All Women Police Station, Pallikaranai Police District, Tambaram.

(Crime No.02 of 2025.)

2. Sharlin .. Respondents CRL OP No. 675 of 2026

1. Liyas Tamilarasan

2. Elumalai

3. Malarkodi

4. Nancy .. Petitioners Vs

1. The State rep by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Selaiyur All Women Police Station, Pallikaranai Police District, Tambaram.

(Crime No.03 of 2025.)

2. Kakani Nikhitha .. Respondents Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pending against the petitioner in P.R.C.Nos.34 and 33 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram and quash the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court.

In both cases:

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ganeshkumar For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For Respondent-2 : Mr.D.Mahendiran

COMMON ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash PRC Nos.34 and 33 of 2025 respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram.

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

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, there was a consensual relationship between the first petitioner and the de facto complainants. Subsequently, on account of misunderstanding due to financial dispute, the second respondents have given complaints, based on which, the first respondent police registered First Information Reports in Crime No.2 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 417, 420, 406 and 294(b) of IPC and Crime No. 3 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 420 and 406 of IPC and subsequently, filed final reports in PRC Nos.34 and 33 of 2025 respectively, implicating the parents and sister of the first petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the de facto complainants submitted that on the advice of elders, the issue has been settled amicably and affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed and hence, the impugned final reports in PRC Nos.34 and 33 of 2025 may be quashed.

5. The petitioners and the de facto complainants appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.N.Kalaimagal, Sub Inspector of Police, W-5 Selaiyur All Women Police Station, Tambaram City, Chennai.

6. On being enquired by this Court, the petitioners and the de facto complainants stated that they have amicably settled the dispute between them and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings pending against each other and therefore, seek to quash the same.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710 for the proposition that the offence under Section 376 IPC is a serious and non- compoundable one and cannot be quashed based on a settlement or payment of monetary compensation unless in exceptional circumstances.

8. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, report