Sridhar @ Sridharan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16077 of 2025 1.Sridhar @ Sridharan 2.Sivakumar 3.Tamilnesan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs.

1.The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.6/2020) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Ravichandran ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to pass an order of quash, to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned Charge sheet in C.C.No.49 of 2021 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul and to quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vivek Bharathi For R-1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.K.Dhinesh Kumar 1/8

ORDER

The petitioners seek to quash the final report in C.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, which was filed for the offences under Section 120B, 406, 506(1), 384, 511, 465 and 471 of IPC.

2. The allegation in the final report is that the defacto complainant is the partner of Top Anil Marketing Company, who is doing "semia" (noodles) business; that on account of prior dispute, the first accused conspired with the other accused and videographed the poor quality of making "semia" as if the same is done in the defacto complainant's factory; that they demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000 from the defacto complainant for not sharing the said video and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the defacto complainant would submit that the proceedings arose on account of dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in their business and that the parties have now arrived at a compromise.

4. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 23rd September 2025 and the scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows: 2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

5. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.S.Joseph Savaridoss, Special Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District. Both the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them and would submit that they have no further claims against each other.

6. In view of the same and considering the nature of the offences and the relationship between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned final report pending trial. Accordingly, the impugned final report in C.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the learned Magistrate No.II, Dindigul is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as costs to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

23.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm 6/8

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

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

7/8

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Lm Crl.O.P(MD).No.16077 of 2025 23.09.2025 8/8