C. Sundaram Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

C. Sundaram Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the final report in C.C. No. 592 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy; joint compromise memo dated 04.11.2025 directed to form part of the order; petitioner directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

Issue for consideration

Whether the final report in C.C. No. 592 of 2021 (arising out of Crime No. 67 of 2017), for offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, should be quashed, the parties having since compromised.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the offences and the relationship between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned final report pending trial.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned final report is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed; the joint compromise memo dated 04.11.2025 shall form part of the order, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner and filing of a compliance memo.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION (QUASHING ON COMPROMISE) — Petition under Section 528 BNSS by C. Sundaram, son-in-law of the defacto complainant, to quash the final report in C.C. No. 592 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy (out of Crime No. 67 of 2017, CCB, Trichy City) for offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — allegation that petitioner abused the defacto complainant, sent threatening messages and created a fake Facebook ID in the name of the defacto complainant's wife — petitioner and second respondent are relatives and entered into a compromise, filing a joint compromise memo dated 04.11.2025; both parties appeared in person and confirmed the compromise — Held, considering the nature of the offences and the relationship between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned final report pending trial; final report quashed, Criminal Original Petition allowed, compromise memo made part of the order, and petitioner directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam and file a receipt with compliance memo. (Sunder Mohan, J., 12.11.2025)

CRL OP(MD). No.18300 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 12.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

CRL OP(MD). No.18300 of 2025

C. Sundaram,

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, CCB, Trichy City, (Crime No. 67/2017).

S. Nagappan Meyyammai, ... Respondents

PRAYER :- This Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report in C.C. No. 592 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy in Crime Number 67 of 2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin,

For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.M.Veerachamy for R2

ORDER

The petitioner seeks to quash the final report filed for the offences

under Section 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

1/4

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

CRL OP(MD). No.18300 of 2025

The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner, who is the

son-in-law of the defacto complainant, had abused the defacto complainant and also had sent certain messages threatening the defacto complainant and created fake facebook ID in the name of the defacto complainant's wife and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are relatives 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 dated 04.11.2025.

The petitioner and the second respondent are present before this

Court in person. They are identified by Mr.V.Murugan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, CCB, Trichy City. The second respondent would submit that his daughter is still living with the petitioner. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

considering the nature of the offences and the relationship

between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose

2/4

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

CRL OP(MD). No.18300 of 2025

would be served by keeping the impugned final report pending trial. Accordingly, the impugned final report is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. joint compromise memo dated 04.11.2025 shall form part of the order. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the “District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam” (Account No. 10767823177, IFSC Code: SBIN0000898, MICR Code: 625002601) and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.

12.11.2025

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order LS

TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy

2.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Trichy City.

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

3/4

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

CRL OP(MD). No.18300 of 2025

SUNDER MOHAN,J

LS

CRL OP(MD) No.18300 of 2025

12.11.2025

4/4

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