Allowed¶30

Hari Kumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Jul 2026CRL OP/17944/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/crime on compromise between parties; Crl.OP. No.17944 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 10-07-2026 by D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.; petition under Section 528 BNSS (counterpart of Section 482 Cr.p.c.) to quash Crime No.185 of 2026, Sholingur Police Station, Ranipet District, for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(3) of BNSS, 2023; related parties; wordy quarrel; assault on defacto complainant and his father; case and counter-case; settlement through family members; parties present in court and confirmed compromise; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; non-compoundable offences; crime quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. No.17944 of 2026 allowed; Crime No.185 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent stands quashed. ¶30

Hari Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 17944 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRL OP No. 17944 of 2026

¶7

Hari Kumar

2. Bharath

..Petitioner(s)

The Inspector of Police, Sholingur Police Station, Sholingur, Ranipet District. Crime No.185 of 2026.

¶12

2. Ramu

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.185 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the Crime No.185 of 2026

¶18

on the file of the 1^st respondent for alleged offences under Sections126(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(3) of BNSS, 2023, on the ground of compromise

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 17944 of 2026

¶22

between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further.

¶23

The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.p.c. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303) and other subsequent judgments.

¶24

The gist of facts leading to the instant case are that the parties are related to each other. On a previous occasion, a wordy quarrel ensued, during which the accused is said to have assaulted the defacto complainant and his father. Subsequently, it is stated that they ironed out their differences thorugh family members. This is a case and counter-case.

¶25