Madras High Court
Dilip Kumar Patra vs State Rep By, on 24 April, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
Dilip Kumar Patra
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai.
(Crime No.14 of 2025)
2. Reshma
W/o.Irfan
No.3, Kalyani Ponnappan Avenue,
Kothari Nagar, Ramapuram,
Chennai – 600 089.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to
call for record in Crime No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All
Women Police Station, Valasaravakkam, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Neshapriyan M
For Respondent(s): Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR R1
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in crime No.14 of 2025 for offences under Sections 75(1)(ii), 77 of BNS, 2023 and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 INF C, filed this quash petition.
__________ Page1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
2.The case against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant completed Anesthesia Studies in September 2024 at ACS Medical College, Dr.MGR University, Maduravoyal, Chennai. During July 2024, while studying in college, she became acquainted with one Sajith of Madurai through instagram and both developed friendship. Sajith used to visit Chennai frequently and both had taken photographs together while visiting cinema theatres, parks and beaches. Thereafter, while the defacto complainant was working under a freelancing scheme in Chennai, one Dilip, who was also working the same scheme, allegedly took her mobile phone without her knowledge and sent messages/calls to Sajith speaking about her, resulting in misunderstanding between the defacto complainant and Sajith. Subsequently, Dilip misbehaved with the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant refused to that. Hence, Dilip sent the photographs of the defacto complainant and Sajith to her husband through mobile Number 9962623316, to the defacto complainant’s husband WhatsApp number on 29.09.2025. Hence, problem started in the defacto complainant’s life. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were known to each other. Due to misunderstanding, dispute arose between them. Now, after the intervention of elders, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, compromise entered between them and they produced a joint compromise __________ Page2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026 memo, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder:
__________ Page3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the defacto complainant is residing with her husband. Mobile phone was seized and sent to Forensic Department and the report of the forensic department is yet to be received. He further submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. It is further
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6.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.
7.The petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Tmt.T.Muthulakshmi, WHC 37535, W37, Valasaravakkam AWPS.
__________ Page6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
8.On enquired by this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant stated that she amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.
9.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 petitioner. 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.
10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the __________ Page7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026 second respondent/defacto complainant 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 against the petitioner in crime No.14 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2025 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. The trial Court, on receipt of the mobile phone and report, shall keep the report in a sealed cover and destroy the mobile phone.
12.The affidavit and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
Index: Yes/No 24-04-2026
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sms
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms
CRL OP No. 9891 of 2026
24-04-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis