K.B.Manivannan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR K.B.Manivannan S/o.Balaraman, No. 222, Sathyabama Street, Kakanji Nagar, Vysarpadi, Chennai 600 039.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Peravallore,Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 082.Crime No. 11/2022.

2. V.Sasikala D/o.Venkatesan, No.D-30, 15th 4th Cross Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai 600 082.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in respect of impugned final report in CC.No.2 of 2023 dated 06.02.2023 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Mahila Court at Egmore and consequently quash the same and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.P.V.Preeja For Respondent(s):

Mr. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

ORDER

The petitioner/accused facing trial in C.C.No.2 of 2023 for offences under Sections 498 (A), 294(b), 506(i) IPC @ 498 (A), 294(b), 506(i) IPC & 4 of Women Harassment Act, filed this quash petition.

2. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. They had two children. The petitioner is addicted to alcohol. The petitioner was talking frequently with another woman over phone, when the defacto complainant questioned him, he assaulted her and drove her with two children out of the house. Hence, the defacto complainant along with her children have been living separately. Subsequently, the defacto filed a divorce case before the Family Court in O.P.No.2225/2020. Further, the petitioner has been repeatedly coming to the defacto complainant's resident in an intoxicated condition, creating quarrels threatening to kill her and her children attempting to assault and causing continuous harassment. Hence, lodged a complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. There was some misunderstanding both of them separated and filed O.P. against each other. Now, after the intervention of elders, both of them have come to a compromise. Subsequently, they withdrawn the O.P.No.2225 of 2020 filed by the defacto complainant and O.P.No.1132 of 2021 filed the petitioner and the petitioner agrees to withdraw C.M.A.No.1979 of 2023 also before this Court against the interim maintenance order passed by the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, a joint

compromise memo entered into between them, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder:

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint, a case registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed, listing 7 witnesses. Now, the case is at trial stage and further, submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.K.Vennila WHC 27757, W17, AWPS, Sembium.

8.On Interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she is willing to settle the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

9.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the case in C.C.No.2 of 2023, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, at Egmore, Chennai.

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the 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 C.C.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, at Egmore, Chennai.

11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, at Egmore, Chennai, is quashed and the terms of affidavit and joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.

24-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms To

1. Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.

2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Peravallore, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 082. Crime No. 11/2022.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sms 24-04-2026