E.Sathish v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
1. E.Sathish S/o.Ezhumalai, No.3A, New Street, Manalurpet, Villupuram-605754.
2. P.Ezhumalai S/o.Pazhani,
3. E.Vimala W/o.Ezhumalai, Petitioners 2 & 3 Residing at No.1/53B, Mariamman Kovil Street, Chi Vadakkuthangal, Chithapattinam, Villupuram-605754.
4. Sekar S/o.Mani, No.545, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Maduvankarai Village, Kattampoondi, Tiruvannamalai-606808.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
(Crime No.24 of 2025)
2. Dhanusya W/o.Sathish, No.40/47, Mettu Street, Pazhampettai, Chetpet Town, Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai district.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Kalaiazhagan For Respondent-1:
Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) G.Paramasivam-MS/1780/2006 R5 For Respondent-2:
Mr.G.Paramasivam Order The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.24 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.03.2025, the respondent police received a complaint from the second respondent/de facto complainant and a case in Crime No.24 of 2025 registered for offence under Sections 85, 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. The gist of the complaint is the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant solemnised on 01.06.2023. During marriage, the parents of the second respondent gifted 40 sovereigns of gold jewels to her and 10 sovereigns to the
first petitioner and gifted silver ornaments worth about Rs.1 lakh and household articles worth about Rs.3 lakhs. Out of the wedlock, the de facto complainant was conceived. The first petitioner is a Doctor by profession. After regular check-up of the de facto complainant, since she is having problem in uterus, the first petitioner and his parents forced her to abort the child and demanded dowry. Hence, the second respondent left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she gave birth to a girl baby on 15.05.2024. On 17.03.2025, the second respondent went to her matrimonial home along with the child. At that time, the petitioners abused her and gave life threat. Hence, a complaint was lodged. 3.
The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent solemnised under Hindu customs and rites in the presence of family members, relatives and friends. Out of the wedlock, a girl baby was born on 15.05.2024. Since there is difference of opinion between the first petitioner and the second respondent, they were separated from 31.10.2023. A family panchayat was arranged by the elders, but the first petitioner and the second respondent were not willing to live together. Due to the above incident, the petitioners filed anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11702 of 2025. This Court referred the matter to mediation. In the mediation centre, the petitioners and second respondent entered into a settlement agreement on 28.07.2025 with conditions.
mutual consent in O.P.No.122 of 2025 before the Sub Court, Polur. During mediation, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the second respondent and minor child by way of demand draft. The second respondent received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2025 and the petitioner agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs.22,00,000/- at the time of filing proof affidavit in O.P.No.122 of 2025. The first petitioner returned the 17 sovereigns of gold jewels to the second respondent on 31.10.2025. Now the petitioners and the second respondent considering their family and their future, decided to compromise the dispute and settled the entire issue amicably. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that during the pendency of the anticipatory bail petition, the matter was referred to mediation.
During mediation, the issue resolved between the petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant and it was agreed that petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the second respondent and minor child Sivanya as permanent alimony by way of demand draft. The second respondent already received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of demand draft at the time of filing mutual consent divorce petition. Now the remaining amount of Rs.22,00,000/- paid by way of demand draft and the second respondent/de facto complainant gave no objection for quashing of the F.I.R. in Crime No.24 of 2025.
5.Today, Ms.K.Ranjitha, WHC 688, All Women Police Station, Thirukovilur, ensured the presence of the petitioners and the de facto complainant/second respondent before this Court. Both parties confirmed their participation in the Mediation Centre and during mediation, the issue deliberated and resolved. Both parties came to an understanding and as per the understanding, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by way of demand draft at the time of filing mutual consent divorce petition and the second respondent received the same. The balance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- also paid through demand draft bearing No.193505 dated 27.05.2026 and the second respondent/de facto complainant also acknowledged receipt of the same. A scanned reproduction of the demand draft reads as follows:
6.They also produced the settlement agreement entered in the Mediation Centre, which reads as follows:
7. The petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant also filed affidavits and Joint Compromise Memo confirming the compromise entered between them.
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.24 of 2025, pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners. The petitioners are discharged from all charges.
9. The affidavits, Joint Compromise Memo and the Settlement Agreement dated 28.07.2025 filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RSI To
1. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
RSI 05-06-2026