Karthik v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18632 of 2025 and Crl.MP.(MD).No.15391 of 2025 R.Karthik ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs.

1.State Rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Trichy City.

In Crime No.304/2021 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Sundararaju ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records connection in case in Crime No.304 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent police, and quash the same as against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For R-1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R-2 : Mr.R.Vignesh 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.304 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offences under Section 294(b), 341, 353, 195A, 505(1)(b) and 506(2) of IPC.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that on account of prior enmity, the first accused had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language; that the first accused threatened the defacto complainant not to depose against him in the previous case; that he played an audio conversation between the petitioner and the second accused to the effect that they were influential persons and that they would help the first accused to come out of the case; and that the first accused further threatened the defacto complainant of dire consequences if he did not depose in favour of the first accused in the earlier case.

3. The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3, has filed this quash petition. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had made certain statements, which was recorded and played by the first accused to the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner had not made any threat to the defacto complainant or committed any of the aforesaid acts. The defacto complainant has now agreed not to pursue the case against the petitioner. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 08.10.2025.

2/5

4. The petitioner, namely, R.Karthik (Aadhaar No.2346 8697 7229) and the defacto complainant, namely, Sundararaju (Aadhaar No.9463 2247 3024) are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Mr.S.Periasamy, Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Trichy District. Both the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

5. Considering the alleged role played by the petitioner, the fact that he has not directly committed any of the aforesaid acts as against the defacto complainant and since the defacto complainant himself is not willing to pursue the complaint as against the petitioner and have arrived at a compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.304 of 2021 is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 08.10.2025 shall form part of this order. It is open to the first respondent to proceed as against the other accused in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.10.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm 3/5

To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Trichy City.

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

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Lm Crl.O.P(MD).No.18632 of 2025 28.10.2025 5/5