S.I Of Police Mallankinaru v. Senthil Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN C.C.No.119 of 2024 (On the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kariyapatti) The Sub Inspector of Police, Mallankinaru Police Sation, Virudhunagar District.
... Petitioner Vs.
Senthilkumar ... Respondent Upon perusing the documents and case records of the above C.C.No. 119 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kariyapatti transmitted to this Court and hearing the arguments of Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and hearing the concerned probation officer this Court passes the following 1/7
ORDER
Prelude:
"This dedicated bench is for implementing the pilot project to identify and dispose of criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years pending at trial, appeal or revision stage for more than 3 years and also offences like Section 506(ii) of IPC and others, which may carry a punishment of more than 3 years in the State of Tamil Nadu with reference to the 14 Districts coming under the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court".
2.This Dedicated Bench has taken the C.C.No.119 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District as Suo motu Special Tr.Case.(MD) No.24228 of 2025 in Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.).(MD).No.1014 of 2025, upon proper scrutinity and considering its suitability that it is a fit case warranting the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash the said C.C., which is pending more than a year without any progress. 2/7
3.Brief facts of the prosecution case in C.C.No.119 of 2024: There existed prior enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused. On 03.01.2018 at about 05.00 pm., when the defacto complainant was going to the ration shop, the accused insisted that she should arrange the marriage of her daughter with him. The same resulted in a quarrel between them. Due to such previous enmity, the accused attacked the defacto complainant with a hammer and caused grievous injuries to her. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No.3. of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 326 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 and on investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.119 of 2024 and the same is pending more than a year without trial.
4.Discussion:
4.1.Both the complainant and the Inspector of Police appeared through video conference and the complainant submitted that he has settled the issues with the accused and both are living peacefully and agreed to close the case. He also stated that he is consenting for compromise without any coercion and also this Court on noting the 3/7
demeanor of the complainant, finds no chance for coercion or threat. 4.2.Mr.M.Sakthikumar, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also submitted that the accused has no previous antecedents. Further he would submit that the accused is confined in Sub Jail, Aruppukottai.
4.3.Due to the petty dispute between them, the complainant made a complaint and final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.119 of 2024 and pending for more than a years. Both parties buried the hatchet dispute bonafidely and filed the compromise memo. Considering that the dispute is trivial in nature and now both the complainant and accused have settled their dispute voluntarily without any threat or coercion, and living peacefully and since the case comes within the parameters of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 and other related judgments and the case is pending without trial and continuation of the trial by examining the witnesses would lead to wastage of time and wastage of Government 4/7
exchequer and also lead to docket explosion without adjudication and the chance of conviction even after the full-fledged trial would also bleak, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5.Accordingly, the C.C.No.119 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District is quashed and this Suo Motu Transfer case stands closed. 5.1.The Jailer, Sub Jail, Arupukottai, is hereby directed to release the accused/respondent forthwith unless, his presence is necessary in any other cases.
20.11.2025 sbn electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.
5/7
Copy to 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mallankinaru Police Sation, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Jailer, Sub Jail, Aruppukottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.
sbn Order made in SUO MOTU Tr. (MD).No.24228 of 2025 20.11.2025 7/7