A.Vijayakumar v. The State Rep By It'S The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl. M.P. Nos. 5060 and 5062 of 2025 A. Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

2.Viruthagiri .... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records in P.R.C.No.20 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and thus, render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Sujith for M/S. V.C. Vinoth Kumar For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinoth Raja, for R1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Ms. S. Sangeetha, for R2 for M/S. M.Manivasagam Associates

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the 9th accused was working as Photographer in the Dharmapuram Adheenam. While being so, he had taken videography of the head of the said Madathipathy with bad intimacy with one lady. Thereafter, showing the said video, he threatened with dire consequences to extract money. Therefore, the second respondent had sent out the 9th accused. While being so, the 9th accused had acquaintance with the first accused. The said incident was informed to him by the 9th accused and he had handover the said video graph to the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused approached the third accused and decided to extract money from the said madathipathy.

3. In turn, it was informed to all the accused person and they had plan to extract money by threatening that the said video will be uploaded in the

social media. Subsequently, it was sent to the second respondent's cellphone and threatened to extract huge money. When the second respondent refused to give any money, he was attacked by the accused person. Hence, the complaint.

4. After registration of FIR, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been pending for committal in P.R.C. No. 20 of 2024. Initially, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is possibility of settlement with the second respondent. However, the second respondent did not agree for the same. Now the second respondent filed affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is absconding and absconding charge sheet was filed. Therefore, it is pending for committal in P.R.C. No.20 of 2024.

5. That apart, the petitioner has political influence and threatened the second respondent to compromise the issue and also obtained the signature from the second respondent. Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility for settlement. Even though, there is settlement between the parties, the petitioner and other accused have committed very serious offence as against society and as such, it cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings and compromise.

6. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.04.2025 Index:Yes/No AT To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai 2.The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, AT Crl. O.P. No. 7845 of 2025 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 5060 and 5062 of 2025 09.04.2025