Vignesh Vs The State Rep. by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vignesh Vs The State Rep. by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.67 of 2025 and, as a sequel, of the investigation therein against the petitioner on the file of the first respondent Police, with a direction that the case cannot be quoted as a disqualification against the petitioner and the defacto-complainant in their future studies, competitive examination and employment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.67 of 2025 (Section 69 BNS), still at the stage of investigation, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant, notwithstanding that the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.

Court's answer

The Court enquired both parties in person and was satisfied that the petitioner and the second respondent have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

Ratio / Principle

A Joint Compromise Memo was filed before the Court; both petitioner and defacto-complainant are major and educated, and that they consciously had a consensual relationship is not in dispute.

Key takeaways

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the First Information Report pending even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature; accordingly, in the light of the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai (2017 9 SCC 641) and after exercising due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar ((2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10)), the Court proceeded to quash.ratio¶31
Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the First Information Report on the file of the first respondent Police; the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and, as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.67 of 2025 is quashed against the petitioner.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), order dated 27-03-2026 in CRL OP No. 7079 of 2026: allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the F.I.R. in Crime No.67 of 2025 (Section 69 BNS) pending on the file of the first respondent Police (W-8, AWPS Thirumangalam, Chennai). Prosecution case: the petitioner and the defacto-complainant, who prepared together for the UPSC exam, had a consensual relationship on his promise of marriage; he later got engaged to another girl and avoided her citing her caste, colour and social status. While investigation was ongoing the parties compromised; they appeared in person, identities confirmed by Mr.J.Prabha, Sub Inspector, and filed a Joint Compromise Memo, both being major and educated, the conscious consensual relationship not in dispute. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending even though the offences are not compoundable, and acting in the light of the guidelines in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath (2017 9 SCC 641) and with due caution as advised in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar ((2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10)), the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR and the investigation against the petitioner, directing that the case cannot be quoted as a disqualification in future studies, competitive examination and employment.