SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Logeshwaran – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 14389 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. K.Sivabalan for M/s. Aran Legal Consultancy
For the Respondents:Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1, Mr.S.Vijayakumar for R2 & R3

The court emphasized that a mutual settlement among family members allows for the quashing of an FIR, considering the nature of the case.

Headnote:The petition for quashing the FIR in Crime No.113 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 was filed due to a family dispute that led to the alleged offences. A compromise was reached between the parties involved, confirming their mutual agreement to withdraw. The Court determined that the investigation's continuance would serve no beneficial purpose, hence it quashed the FIR. The Court acknowledged the compromise reached by the parties dated 19.08.2025 as pivotal to its decision.

Table of Content
1. quashing of fir based on family dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. joint compromise memo confirms no objections. (Para 3)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.113 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNSS , 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002.

2. The allegation is that the first petitioner is the husband of one of the victims/Suganya; that due to a family dispute, the victim/Suganya was residing in her parents’ house, along with the defecto complainant and others; and that on the date of occurrence, the petitioners went to the house of the victim's parents and attacked them with wooden logs and abused them in filthy language.

3. The petitioners and the defacto complainant and also the victim had arrived at a compromise and entered into a Joint Compromise Memo on

19.08.2025. The defecto complainant and the victim/Suganya are present before the Court. Both of them confirm the compromise. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the FIR in Crime No.113 of 2025. Both the parties have been identified by M/s.M.Muthu Lakshmi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai. The Compromise Memo is extracted below:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top