Selvakumar v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Selvakumar ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
2.The State Rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, Moolakaraipatty Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.240 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant 3.Maheshwari ...3rd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 4.Dhanalakshmi ...4th Respondent/Victim Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in S.C.No.58 of 2025 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 & R-4 : Mr.S.Ahamed Ashif Ali 1/9
ORDER
The petitioner seeks quashing of the final report in S.C.No.58 of 2025 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli, for the alleged offences under Section 296(b), 109, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The allegation in the final report is that due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioner attacked his wife, defacto complainant with a knife and caused injuries besides causing injury to her mother, who is the other victim in this case.
3. The parties namely the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the other victim have arrived at a compromise and filed a joint compromise memo.
4. The scanned copy of the joint compromise memo dated 16th September 2025, reads as follows:
2/9
3/9
4/9
5/9
5. The defacto complainant, namely Maheshwari, wife of the petitioner is present before this Court in person and confirms the compromise and submits that she is living with the petitioner for the past ten months.
6. The petitioner, Selvakumar, defacto complainant, Maheshwari and the victim, Dhanalakshmi, are present before this Court in person. They are identified by M/s.N.Rajakumari, Inspector of Police, Moolakaraipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.
7. Though there are allegations of the offence under Section 109 of the BNS Act, considering the fact that the dispute is between the husband and wife, they are now living together; and they have two children, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the impugned prosecution will cause serious hardship to the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly, final report in S.C.No.58 of 2025 is quashed.
8. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the case was registered under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2) 6/9
(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a compensation of Rs. 3,18,000/- was given to the defacto complainant.
9. This Court is of the view that the said compensation is liable to be returned to the concerned Department. Therefore, the defacto complainant, who has received the compensation is directed to deposit the said amount into the account of the concerned department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the order passed by this Court quashing the proceedings shall stand vacated without reference to this Court.
10. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 17.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sn 7/9
To 1.The II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Moolakaraipatty Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sn Crl.O.P(MD).No.15434 of 2025 17.09.2025 9/9