CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 CRL OP No. 14053 of 2026 Prabhakaran @ Prabakaran S/o Palani ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police W2 AWPS Police Station Triplicane, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.1 of 2025. 2. Manorajitham W/o Aswin Kumar, ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in SC.No.781 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam at Chennai and Quash the same and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Prabhu For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 __________ Page1 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 CRL OP No. 15797 of 2026 1. Manoranjitham W/o Aswin Kumar, 2. Aswin Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police D1-Police Station, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.62 of 2025 2. Pavithra ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in Crime No.62 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent and Quash the same and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Mughilvannan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 __________ Page2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai 2.The case of the prosecution in CRL.OP.No.14053 of 2026 is that Prahakaran @ Prabakaran, and Manoranjitham became acquainted through social media and entered into a relationship. It was alleged that on the false promise of marriage, Prahakaran @ Prabakaran sexually assaulted Manoranjitham. Thereafter, when she got pregnant, she was forced to undergo an abortion. The said Prahakaran @ Prabakaran and his wife threatened Manoranjitham to end her relationship with him and also intimidated her by threatening to circulate her private photographs. Based on the complaint lodged by Manoranjitham, an FIR was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed in SC.No.781 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam at Chennai. 3.The case of the prosecution in CRL.OP.No.15797 of 2026 is that the defacto complainant’s husband, Prabagaran, who was serving as a Grade II Police Driver, became acquainted with Manoranjitham and her husband __________ Page3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026

Ashwin, through Facebook. It is alleged that they induced him to become a partner of their finance business, pursuant to which Prabagaran transferred Rs.15,00,000/- to their account. When Prabagaran demanded repayment of the said amount, they allegedly refused to return the money. Further, they threatened Prabagaran using personal photographs also threatened to file a false complaint against him to ensure his dismissal from Government service. Hence, an FIR in Crime No.62 of 2025 came to be registered against Manoranjitham and her husband. 4.The learned counsel for either of the parties submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably. In view of the settlement, they have filed a Joint Compromise Memos, which were scanned and reproduced hereunder: __________ Page4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 5.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that based on the complaint of both parties, FIRs came to be registered and in one case, charge sheet was filed and the same has been taken on file in SC.No.781 of 2025. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The matter arises out of a case and counter-case between the parties. Crime No.62 of 2025, is still at the stage of investigation and SC.No.781 of 2025 is pending trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 8. Both the parties appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel. 9.On interaction by this Court, both the parties stated that they have amicably settled the dispute between them and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same. __________ Page10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026

10.The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 11.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the parties and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.62 of 2025 before the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai. __________ Page11 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 12.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2025 before the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai, are quashed. 13.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memos filed by the parties for compromising the offences shall form part of the record. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS __________ Page12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 To 1. The Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam at Chennai 2. Inspector of Police W2 AWPS Police Station Triplicane, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.1 of 2025. 3. The Inspector of Police D1-Police Station, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.62 of 2025 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras __________ Page13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 25-06-2026 __________ Page14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 CRL OP No. 14053 of 2026 Prabhakaran @ Prabakaran S/o Palani ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police W2 AWPS Police Station Triplicane, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.1 of 2025. 2. Manorajitham W/o Aswin Kumar, ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in SC.No.781 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam at Chennai and Quash the same and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Prabhu For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 __________ Page1 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 CRL OP No. 15797 of 2026 1. Manoranjitham W/o Aswin Kumar, 2. Aswin Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police D1-Police Station, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.62 of 2025 2. Pavithra ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in Crime No.62 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent and Quash the same and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Mughilvannan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, G.A.(Crl. Side), for R1 __________ Page2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai 2.The case of the prosecution in CRL.OP.No.14053 of 2026 is that Prahakaran @ Prabakaran, and Manoranjitham became acquainted through social media and entered into a relationship. It was alleged that on the false promise of marriage, Prahakaran @ Prabakaran sexually assaulted Manoranjitham. Thereafter, when she got pregnant, she was forced to undergo an abortion. The said Prahakaran @ Prabakaran and his wife threatened Manoranjitham to end her relationship with him and also intimidated her by threatening to circulate her private photographs. Based on the complaint lodged by Manoranjitham, an FIR was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed in SC.No.781 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Allikulam at Chennai. 3.The case of the prosecution in CRL.OP.No.15797 of 2026 is that the defacto complainant’s husband, Prabagaran, who was serving as a Grade II Police Driver, became acquainted with Manoranjitham and her husband __________ Page3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026

Ashwin, through Facebook. It is alleged that they induced him to become a partner of their finance business, pursuant to which Prabagaran transferred Rs.15,00,000/- to their account. When Prabagaran demanded repayment of the said amount, they allegedly refused to return the money. Further, they threatened Prabagaran using personal photographs also threatened to file a false complaint against him to ensure his dismissal from Government service. Hence, an FIR in Crime No.62 of 2025 came to be registered against Manoranjitham and her husband. 4.The learned counsel for either of the parties submitted that the occurrence arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which was purely personal in nature. Subsequently, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties resolved their differences amicably. In view of the settlement, they have filed a Joint Compromise Memos, which were scanned and reproduced hereunder: __________ Page4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 5.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that based on the complaint of both parties, FIRs came to be registered and in one case, charge sheet was filed and the same has been taken on file in SC.No.781 of 2025. He further submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The matter arises out of a case and counter-case between the parties. Crime No.62 of 2025, is still at the stage of investigation and SC.No.781 of 2025 is pending trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 8. Both the parties appeared before this Court and were duly identified by their respective counsel. 9.On interaction by this Court, both the parties stated that they have amicably settled the dispute between them and they are not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seek to quash the same. __________ Page10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026

10.The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 11.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the parties and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.62 of 2025 before the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai. __________ Page11 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 12.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2025 before the first respondent Police and S.C.No.781 of 2025 pending on the file of Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai, are quashed. 13.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memos filed by the parties for compromising the offences shall form part of the record. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS __________ Page12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 To 1. The Magalir Neethimandram Allikulam at Chennai 2. Inspector of Police W2 AWPS Police Station Triplicane, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.1 of 2025. 3. The Inspector of Police D1-Police Station, Chennai - 600 002. Crime No.62 of 2025 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras __________ Page13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS CRL OP Nos. 14053 and 15797 of 2026 25-06-2026 __________ Page14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis