Allowed¶30

Rajadhurai v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Jun 2026CRL OP/14593/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement/compromise despite non-compoundable offences; inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petition filed under Section 528 BNSS; offences under Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC; marriage between accused and complainant's daughter as basis of settlement; identity verified by Sub-Inspector; reliance on Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10; Madras High Court; Annur Police Station, Coimbatore; Crime No.26 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024; Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2024, dated 10.01.2024, on the file of the first respondent Police (Annur Police Station) against the petitioner. ¶30

Rajadhurai Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2024, dated 10.01.2024, on the file of the first respondent Police (Annur Police Station) against the petitioner.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2024 and the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed on the ground of the amicable compromise between the petitioner and the second respondent, even though the offences charged are not compoundable.

¶22

Court's answer

Although the offences involved are not compoundable, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the First Information Report pending once the parties have genuinely settled.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and exercising due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the F.I.R.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and, as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2024, dated 10.01.2024, on the file of the first respondent Police is quashed against the petitioner.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M.Nirmal Kumar, J.), Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026, decided 12.06.2026 — Quashing of FIR on compromise. Rajadhurai, accused in Crime No.26 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 of Annur Police Station, Coimbatore, for offences under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, filed this petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground of compromise. At the investigation stage the parties agreed to settle; the petitioner had meanwhile married the de facto complainant's (second respondent C.Palanisamy's) daughter Keerthika on 30.04.2025, and the marriage certificate was produced. Both parties appeared before the Court, their identity was confirmed by the station Sub-Inspector (Mr.J.Abdul Muthalip), and they filed affidavits expressing unwillingness to proceed. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending even though the offences were not compoundable, and guided by the Supreme Court's guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, with due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026

Rajadhurai

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶11

C.Palanisamy

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the 1 st respondent and to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arshad Khan For Respondents : Mr.A.Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 : Ms.N.Priya, for R2

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.26 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, on the file of the first respondent Police, has filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent namely, Keerthika, loved each other. On 10.01.2024, around 1.00 A.M, the petitioner threw the gravels on the door of the second respondent’s house and also called the second respondent at 2.00 A.M over phone and threatened him. On the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2024 for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶21

The case is at the stage of investigation. By passage of time,

¶22

the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶23

Today, the petitioner and the second respondent appeared

¶24

2/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.14593 of 2026

¶27

before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mr.J.Abdul Muthalip, Sub-Inspector attached to the first respondent Police Station. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent got married on 30.04.2025 at the petitioner’s house and the marriage certificate was also produced before this Court. Now, they are not willing to further proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect.

¶28

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in

¶29

keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 - ( Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath ), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the F.I.R.

¶30