Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Seruvalingam – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14698 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Pandiyaraj
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Mr.J.Yesu Subananth
The court dismissed the charges after the parties reached a compromise, determining further proceedings unnecessary.
Headnote:The petitioners request the quashing of C.C.No.68 of 2023, filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, alongside various IPC sections, arguing that the allegations stemmed from family disputes which have now been amicably resolved. The court found that the parties had reached a compromise, nullifying the usefulness of a trial for the established offenses. The central question was whether retaining the case served any purpose given the settlement between the parties involved. The court ruled that keeping the final report pending trial would not serve any useful purpose and consequently quashed the complaints against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of charges due to compromise in family disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's discretion to quash based on the resolution of the parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
The petitioners seek to quash the final report in C.C.No.68 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (JM Level), Sivagangai District, which was filed for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002. 2. The allegation in the final report is that the first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant and the other accused are her in-laws; that all the accused harassed the defacto complainant by body shaming her; they abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners and the defacto complainant belong to the same family and they have now entered into a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo and the scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows:
4. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court in person. They are identified by M/s.M.Alageswari, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District. The defacto complainant confirms the compromise and states that she is now living with the first petitioner.
5. 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 by keeping the impugned final report pending trial. Accordingly, the impugned final report in C.C.No.68 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (JM Level), Sivagangai District is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
15.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm To
