Hariharasudhan @ Hari Prijan Vs The State rep.by

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the records relating to Cr.No.688 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the same as against the Petitioners/A1, A2 and A4 to A7.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Rajendran For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M/s.Harshana.T for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the proceedings against

¶23

the petitioners in Cr.No.688 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 332, 296 (b), 118 (1) and 351 (3) of BNS on the file of the first respondent.

¶24

__________ Page1 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 6902 of 2026

¶27

2 .The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant runs a Cake

¶28

Shop in the name “Tastey Yellow” and also conducts party events. It is alleged that on 22.09.2025 at about 11.30 p.m., while the defacto-complainant and his friend Krithik, were standing near Campus Bakery, the first accused contacted the complainant by phone and questioned why the complainant staring at him whenever they came across. The complainant replied that he had no reason to stare and disconnected the call. Thereafter, A1 along A5 to A7 reached the scene, questioned the defacto-complainant again and left the place. Later, A3 called the defacto-complainant, abused him using filthy language and threatened him. Following the same, petitioners entered the defacto-complainant’s house and attacked him with knife, due to which he sustained injuries in his fingers and hands and further threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, complaint lodged.

¶29

3 .Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners not involved in any such activities as alleged by the 2 nd respondent and they used no filthy language or caused physical violence to the 2 nd respondent. He further submits that on considering the well-being and future, the 2 nd respondent is not willing to proceed further with the complaint registered against the petitioners. The petitioners and the 2 nd respondent arrived at a compromise and resolved the issue. Hence, prays for quashing.

¶30

__________ Page2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

CRL OP No. 6902 of 2026

¶33

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant a case has been registered in Cr.No.688 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 332, 296 (b), 118 (1) and 351 (3) of BNS. Now the investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues.

¶34

5.Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that

¶35

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.

¶36

6.Today the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and their identity is confirmed by Mr.S.Chandran, Head Constable attached to the 1 st 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 petitioners and the 2 nd respondent filed Joint Compromise Memo dated 09.03.2026 and affidavits before this Court.

¶37

Page3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP No. 6902 of 2026

¶40

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. 7.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping

¶41

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 Suprme 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., quashes the First Information Report on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶42