B.Navaneethakrishnan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Dindigul
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16189 of 2025 1.B.Navaneethakrishnan 2.Bagavathi 3.Gomathi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No. 25 of 2024) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Sivadurka ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in S.C.No.266 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balaji For R-1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.N.Thinakaran 1/9
ORDER
The petitioners seek to quash the final report in S.C.No.266 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul District, which was filed for the offences under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. The allegation in the final report is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant were known to each other; that on the promise of marriage, the first petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on several occasions; that the defacto complainant helped the first petitioner by transferring money; that the first petitioner thereafter refused to marry her and refused to return the money and also committed the offence of criminal intimidation; and that the petitioners 2 and 3 had abetted the first petitioner of the alleged offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, would only disclose consensual relationship and the offence under Section 69 of BNS would not be made out; and that in any case, the parties have now entered into a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire dispute. 2/9
4. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 13th September 2025 and the scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows: 3/9
4/9
5/9
5. The second respondent, namely, Sivadurka (Aadhaar No.5385 3098 0001) is present before this Court in person and identified by M/s.P.Saravanakumari, Woman Special Sub Inspector of Police, All Woman 6/9
Police Station, Dindigul District. The second respondent confirms the compromise and states that she has no objection for quashing the sessions case.
6. Considering the fact that there was a consensual relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant and the nature of the allegations and the compromise arrived 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 S.C.No.266 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul District 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 High Court Legal Services Authority 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 7/9
To 1.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul District.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Lm Crl.O.P(MD).No.16189 of 2025 23.09.2025 9/9