Allowed¶27

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

Madras HC20 Jul 2026CRL OP/18353/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR/criminal case on compromise; non-compoundable offences; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 Cr.p.c.; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; love affair; criminal intimidation and threat; Sections 294(b), 354, 509, 506(1) IPC; Ammapet Police Station, Salem District; Karur; Madras High Court; CRL OP No. 18353 of 2026; Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy; parties examined in court confirming compromise.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Crime No.293 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem District. ¶27

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

¶1

CRL OP No. 18353 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 18353 of 2026

¶6

Rajkumar, S/o. Annadurai, No.312/6, Saraswathi Nagar, Vadivel Nagar, Covai Road, Andankovil, Karur District-639 002.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Ammapet Police Station, Salem District. Crime No.293 of 2022

¶10

Keerthana D/o. Murugan, No.2/116, Mettu Street, Kappukarar Vattam, Udayarpatti, Salem District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records related to the case in Crime No.293 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st Respondent Police and Quash the same, as against the Petitioners/Accused and thus render justice.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1

¶14

Page1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 18353 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash Crime No.293 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 354, 509 & 506(1) of IPC, on the ground of compromise 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The background facts in which the case arise is that the accused and the de facto complainant are in a love affair. While so, the de facto complainant has showed the photograph taken with her to her father and when the de facto complainant accosted the accused with reference to the same, he said to have threatened her that in case if she gets married to somebody else or starts developing a relationship with some third party, he will not leave her alone. Today both parties submit that they are continuing the relationship and are

¶21

__________ Page2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 18353 of 2026

¶24

living together and, they have ironed out the differences. The de facto complaint submits that in her own best interests, the case need not be continued.

¶25

Thus, it can be seen that this matter is a fit case for the exercise of

¶26

extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case on compromise.

¶27

Accordingly, this Crl.O.P. No.18353 of 2026 stands allowed. The Crime No.293 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent / the Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem District stands quashed.

20-07-2026

Neutral Citation: No

KKN