Manimaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.3537 of 2025

1. Manimaran

2. Babu Alias Koli Babu ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No. 69 of 2024).

2. Ganesan ... 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. 381 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District and Quash the same.

For petitioners : Mr.J.Mohamed Ibrahim For Respondents : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl side) For R2 : Mr.Yasar Arafath Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.381 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District for the offences under Sections 294(b), 335, 427, 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.69 of 2024 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners and defacto complainant are relative. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No. 69 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 335, 427, 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

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.381 of 2024, 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.

Page No. 2 of 5

4. Today, the defacto-complainant and all the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that they entered into a compromise as they are relatives. A compromise memo, dated 24.02.2025 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 parties and the parties 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.381 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District is quashed. The compromise memo dated 24.02.2025 filed by the parties shall form part of this order.

12.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PNM Page No. 3 of 5

To 1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District 2.The Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No. 69 of 2024).

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J PNM ORDER IN Crl.OP(MD) No.3537 of 2025 12.03.2025 Page No. 5 of 5