Mrs.Sandhiya, Aged 30 Years, v. The State Rep. By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mrs.Sandhiya, Aged 30 Years, Mr.Suresh, Ammanibhavan, Mannarswamy Koil, Thindivanam, Tamil Nadu.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. By, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tindivanam.

(Cr.No.6 of 2009)

2. Mr.Suresh Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of aquittal dated 31.08.2016 made in Crl.A.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thindivanam, by allowing the Criminal Appeal.

For Appellant(s):

Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram For M/s.Nathan And Associates For Respondent(s):

Mr. L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1

Mr.C.Vigneswaran For R2

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in Crl.A.No.18 of 2016.

2. The second respondent was tried for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 494 of the IPC, 1860 in C.C.No.415 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam. The appellant is the victim who lodged the FIR in Cr.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent. The second respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. On appeal in Crl.A.No.18 of 2016, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tinidvanam, acquitted the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

3. While the appeal was pending before this Court, the parties viz., the

appellant and the second respondent entered into a compromise and have signed a Joint Compromise Memo. The Joint Compromise Memo dated 21.07.2025 is scanned and reproduced below.

4. Mrs. Sandhiya, the appellant was identified by her counsel Mr.Leelesh Sundaram and had produced her Aadhar Card bearing No. 7405 3150 7121. To a specific query, she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the second respondent and the contents of the compromise memo, are true. She would also request the Court to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

5. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and since the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is compoundable, no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating the case on merits. Hence, this Court permits compounding of the offence. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

21.07.2025 Index : yes/no Speaking /Non-speaking order ars To 1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tinidvanam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ars

21.07.2025