High Courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases involving purely personal disputes where a valid compromise has been reached and no broader public interest is implicated.

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in crime No.41 of 2025 for offences under Section

64(1) & 351(2) of BNS, 2023, filed this quash petition.

2.The case against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant joined the duty on 09.09.2025 in the petitioner’s shop namely Three in One at Veltech Bharathi Nagar. After four days i.e. 13.09.2025 when the defacto complainant was working at the shop, the petitioner told her that they were to shift the things from his old house. Hence, he took her to his house. When they went to the house, the petitioner locked the door, thereafter, he forcibly removed her pant and had sexual intercourse. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the final report. On the ill advice of someone, the defacto complainant gave a complaint. Now, after the intervention of elders, both of them have come to a compromise. In view of the same, the defacto complainant agreed to withdraw the case pending against the petitioner in PRC No.10 of 2026. Based on the compromise, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs.1,50,000/- to that effect, undertaking deed was executed and on the date of execution of the undertaking deed, the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the defacto complainant and agreed to pay the rest of Rs.50,000/- on the date of filing of quash petition on compromise. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings of PRC No.10 of 2026.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint, a case registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed, listing 12 witnesses. Now, the case is at PRC stage and further, submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner is aged 20 years and her husband died and she is having 9 months old boy baby. She is going to marry one Surya, her boyfriend. The defacto complainant was sent to medical examination at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai-10. After examination, the doctor gave opinion that “I could not say that sexual Assault has not occurred”. Now, the defacto complainant for the future of her baby, come to a compromise.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is not willing to proceed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and on the advice of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against thepetitioner and in this regard, a joint compromise memo entered into between them, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder:

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

7.The case is still at PRC stage. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

8.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel.

9.On enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she is willing to settle the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

10.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are no