Venkatesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.7864 of 2025 Venkatesh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu through 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.23 of 2022) 2.Saranya ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.69 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balamuruganantham For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.UM.Berdin Vinodh Page No. 1 of 6

*****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.69 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court/Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 294B and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.23 of 2022 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and defacto complainant are husband and wife. Due to matrimonial dispute, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No.23 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 294B and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In connection with the case, the petitioner was remanded in judicial custody on 18.04.2025 and now, he is in District Prison, Ramanathapuram.

Page No. 2 of 6

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.69 of 2023, 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. Today, the defacto-complainant is present before this Court and the accused/petition appears through video conference mode from District Prison, Ramanathapuram and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto-complainant represented that they entered into a compromise as they are husband and wife and she wants to give quietus to this matter. A compromise memo, dated-nil 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 they have also entered into a compromise, it is appropriate to allow this petition.

Page No. 3 of 6

7. Recording the said compromise memo, this petition is allowed and C.C.No.69 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court/Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, is quashed. The Prison Authority, District Prison, Ramanathapuram is directed to release the petitioner forthwith subject to other cases, if any pending against the petitioner.

29.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd Note:

Registry is directed to sent intimation to the Prison Authority, District Prison, Ramanathapuram.

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Officer-in-Charge, District Prison, Ramanathapuram.

3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Page No. 4 of 6

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P.DHANABAL,J apd Page No. 5 of 6

Crl.OP(MD) No.7864 of 2025 29.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 6