Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
E.RISHIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.S.N.Prabhakaran
For the Respondents: Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM
Criminal proceedings for personal offences without public interest can be quashed on compromise.
Headnote:The petitioner was accused under Section 69 of the BNS for an alleged breach of promise to marry and sexual assault. The parties, being relatives, amicably settled the dispute under the intervention of elders and the victim expressed no desire to pursue the case. The court examined the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and concluded that the offence was personal in nature without any public interest and exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR. The main legal issue was whether a criminal proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence could be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The court held that where such an offence is purely personal in nature and does not involve any overriding public interest, the criminal proceedings can be quashed. The relevant quote from the judgement states: "The Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest." The Criminal Original Petition was allowed. The FIR in Crime No.22 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police was quashed as against the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner was charged under section 69 bns following a reported breach of promise to marry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the parties settled the dispute and expressed willingness to quash the fir. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. offences of purely personal nature without public interest may be quashed on compromise. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. the fir was quashed as the parties entered into a compromise. (Para 11) |
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in crime No.22 of 2025 for offences under Sections 69 of BNS 2023 filed this quash petition.
2.The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant aged about 26 years are relatives and were in a love affair. Thereafter, the petitioner promised the defacto complainant/victim that he will marry her and committed penetrative sexual assault. It is also alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant.
Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that it is a love affair. Now on the intervention of elders, both the parties amicably settled the issue among themselves and they are interested in their academics. Further, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant does not wish to pursue the complaint and has no objection to quash the FIR and related proceedings. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, a memo of compromise entered between them, which is scanned and produced hereunder:
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
6.The petitioner and the defacto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.P.Sasikala, WSI, W-28 Kotturpuram, AWPS, R.A.Puram, Chennai – 28.
7.On being enquired by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. She confirms that she is a major, educated, was having a conscious and consensus relationship with the petitioner, knowing its consequences.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
9.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 petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non- compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
10.In the present case, the offence in question is purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no
