Jothi Raj 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.7960 of 2025 Jothi Raj ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.,by, the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District (Crime No. 607 of 2024).

2. Palaniammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to call for the records in C.C.No. 57 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same for further proceedings against the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr. C.Saravanakumar. For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No. 1 of 5

For R2 : Mr.R.Mohanasundaram *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No. 57 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 325 and 351(3) of BNS, Section 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.607 of 2024 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and defacto complainant are hailing from same village. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Crime No.607 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 325 and 351(3) of BNS, Section 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Page No. 2 of 5

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. 57 of 2025, 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 and the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defactocomplainant represented that they entered into a compromise and she has no objection in allowing this petition. A compromise memo, dated 28.04.2025 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 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. 57 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Page No. 3 of 5

Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, is quashed as against the petitioner.

29.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District 2.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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.7960 of 2025 29.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5