CRL OP(MD)/13902/2024 of Veeramani Vs The Inspector of Police on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. This petition has been filed to quash the case in Crime No.352 of 2022 dated 25.10.2022 on the file of the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The five petitioners are arrayed as accused in the First Information Report. The de-facto complainant Mr.Vignesh, lodged a complaint against the petitioners, based on which a case was registered and the investigation commenced and the case is under investigation.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.352 of 2022 and the de-facto complainant, Mr.Vignesh, who is the second respondent in the present petition, entered into a compromise by way of Joint Compromise Memo in June 2024. It is said that the elders in the village intervened and resolved the dispute amicably. The petitioners belongs to one groups of the community, whereas the second respondent belongs to another group of the community. In view of the amicable settlement arrived between them, they filed the Joint Compromise Memo seeking to quash the same and to put an end to the dispute in the village.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that this is a case and a counter case in which originally a case in Crime No.351 of 2022 was registered based on the complaint given by Mr.Gunasekaran against the second respondent herein, Mr.Vignesh, for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 506

(ii) IPC & 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, r/w. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(s), 3(ii)(v) SC/ST Act. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C. No. 15 of 2023 by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

5. After contesting the same the accused therein, Mr. Vignesh, who is the second respondent in this case, was acquitted by a judgment dated 24.07.2025. This is the factual position relating to the case and the counter case.

6. Though this Joint Compromise Memo was filed as early as on 02.09.2024 it remained pending for more than two years. This Joint Compromise Memo was pending because one of the person in the Joint Compromise Memo was unable to appear before this Court is the submission made by the counsel.

7. When the matter was listed yesterday, this Court, taking note of the fact that the Joint Compromise Memo had remained pending, directed the parties to appear either in person or through video conference before this Court to interact with them and dispose the same.

8. Today, all five petitioners and the second respondent appeared before this Court. This Court interacted about the Joint Compromise Memo content to know whether it was really intended to execute or there is any threat from anybody. All of them stated that they entered into the compromise voluntarily, out of their own free will and without any influence from any person. Their statements brings confidence to this Court.

9. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to record the Joint Compromise Memo. Having the Joint Compromise Memo has been accepted by this Court, and the second respondent, who was an accused in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, was acquitted on 24.07.2025 and he conceded this case as a fit case to compromise the issue and quash the case in Crime No.352 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police by invoking Section 528 of a BNSS.

10. In view of the above, the case in Crime No.352 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent stands quashed. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The identities of petitioners 1 to 5 and the second respondent have been verified through their respective Aadhar cards. Copies of the Aadhar cards is also a part of the records.

11. Since this case has been resolved between the petitioners and the second respondent by the continuous efforts made by the advocates on both sides by way of Joint Compromise Memo, which has been accepted by this Court, the case against the accused is quashed. However, this Court is of the firm view that some cost should be imposed on the Petitioners/Accused.

12. Accordingly, each petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust. Thus, a total sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be paid to said Advocates Welfare Fund Trust and receipt of the same shall be produced before this Court by today itself.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

24.09.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No psa To

1. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.

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

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. psa

CRL.OP(MD). No.13902 of 2024

24.09.2026