Allowed¶31

Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Sept 2025CRL OP(MD)/14690/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise - joint compromise memo by accused and defacto complainant - offence under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 - alleged property damage of Rs.25,000 - petition under Section 528 BNSS - Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025 - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - Sunder Mohan, J. - FIR in Crime No.299 of 2025, Pazhavoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District quashed - defacto complainant confirmed compromise in person - petition allowed (08.09.2025).

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R in Crime No.299 of 2025 against the petitioners, in terms of the joint compromise memo. ¶31

Ravikumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14690 of 2025

¶7

1.Ravikumar

¶8

2.Robert ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.299 of 2025) ... 1^st

¶11

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Welington ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.299 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioners.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suresh For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi

¶15

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

For R-2 : Mr.B.Kithiyon

¶17

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners seek for quashing the impugned F.I.R in Crime No.299 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

¶21

The allegation in the F.I.R is that the petitioners had damaged the property belonging to the second respondent worth about Rs.25,000/and thus, they committed the aforesaid offence.

¶22

The petitioners and the second respondent/ defacto complainant have since arrived at a compromise and had filed a joint compromise memo, by which the second respondent/ defacto complainant has agreed to withdraw the complaint and agreed for quashing of the complaint, on the basis of the compromise. The Joint Compromise Memo is extracted below:

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025

¶25

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025

¶27

The said compromise memo is taken on record. The second respondent / defacto complainant is present in person and is identified by Mr.A.Muthupandian, SSI 507, Palavoor Police Station, he confirms the compromise entered into between him and the petitioners.

¶28

Therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the investigation pending. Accordingly the impugned F.I.R in Crime No.299 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police, is hereby quashed, in terms of the joint compromise memo. The joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order.

¶29

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14690 of 2025

¶31