Pethanasamy @ Karthicraja v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.1461 of 2025 1.Pethanasamy 2.Rathinam ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai.

(Crime No.22 of 2015) 2.Ponmani ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.07 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioners.

Page No. 1 of 5

For petitioners : Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl side) For R2 : Mr.Selva Kumar *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.07 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, Madurai for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(1) of IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.22 of 2015 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, the first petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant regarding the matrimonial disputer, the police has registered FIR in Crime No.22 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(1) of IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in C.C.No.07 of Page No. 2 of 5

2016, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.

4. The second petitioner/Rathinam died on 23.01.2025 and to that effect, the Death Certificate was filed. Today, the defacto-complainant and the first petition are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto-complainant represented that they entered into a compromise and he has no objection in allowing this petition. A compromise memo, dated 09.03.2024 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.

5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.

6. Considering the nature of the offences, the relationship between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and they have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate to allow this petition.

7. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and C.C.No.07 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Page No. 3 of 5

Usilampatti, Madurai, is quashed, as far as the petitioners are concerned. 27.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.1461 of 2025 27.03.2025 Page No. 5 of 5