Allowed¶81

Kubendran v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Dec 2025CRL RC/1661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022 (decided 04-12-2025, M. Nirmal Kumar J.): conviction under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC set aside and accused-husband acquitted on compromise between estranged spouses; offences held compoundable once matrimonial discord resolved; de-facto complainant/wife condoned the act and declined to pursue the case; compromise and payment of Rs.4,00,000/- recorded in M.C.No.4 of 2021; divorce granted in H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021; revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.; C.C.No.35 of 2011 and Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case allowed; the conviction in C.C.No.35 of 2011 dated 01.02.2017 and its confirmation in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 dated 25.02.2021 set aside; petitioner acquitted from all charges. ¶81

Kubendran Vs Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Case allowed; the conviction in C.C.No.35 of 2011 dated 01.02.2017 and its confirmation in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 dated 25.02.2021 set aside; petitioner acquitted from all charges.

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC (confirmed in appeal) should be set aside in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, the dispute being a resolved matrimonial discord and the offences being compoundable.

¶75

Court's answer

The offences under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of I.P.C. are compoundable where the matter is primarily a matrimonial discord between estranged spouses which now stands resolved.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

In view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, the de-facto complainant is not interested to pursue the case and has condoned the act of the petitioner.

¶76

Key takeaways

The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali in C.C.No.35 of 2011 dated 01.02.2017, as confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myladuthurai in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 dated 25.02.2021, is set aside.ratio¶80
The petitioner is acquitted from all charges.ratio¶81

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings: conviction of the petitioner-husband under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi in C.C.No.35 of 2011 (judgment dated 01.02.2017, one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence; mother acquitted; petitioner acquitted under Section 294(b) IPC), confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myladuthurai in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 (judgment dated 25.02.2021). During the revision, the parties - estranged spouses already divorced by the Principal Sub-Judge, Myladuthurai in H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 - compromised; the de-facto complainant appeared before the High Court, confirmed the compromise (payment of Rs.4,00,000/- recorded in M.C.No.4 of 2021), stated she was not interested to pursue the case and condoned the act of the petitioner. Holding that the dispute was a matrimonial discord now resolved and that the offences under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC are compoundable, the Court set aside the conviction and appellate confirmation and acquitted the petitioner of all charges; revision allowed.

¶1

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶7

Kubendran

¶8

S/o Samidurai, Sarkhan Street, Sirkali

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Inspector of Police AWPS Sirkazhi, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.01/2011)

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the orders pertaining to the judgment in C.A.No.03 of 2017 vide order dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myladuthurai confirming the judgment dated 01.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.35 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi and set aside the same by allowing the above revision

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶17

petition.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.T.Raja

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Ms.Harshana. T

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Court, on 12.11.2025, had passed the following order:

¶22

“The petitioner, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 498(A) & 506(II) of IPC in CC No.35 of 2011 and sentenced him to undergo a period of one year rigorous imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment vide judgement dated 01.02.2017. Aggrieved by the same, he had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Myladuthurai in CA No.03/2017. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 25.02.2021 dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Against which, the present revision.

¶23

2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶27

defacto complainant in this case, got married in the year 2007 and it is a love marriage and they were blessed with a girl child out of their marriage. The defacto complainant was always suspecting the petitioner and questioning the petitioner about the same. She made an allegation that the petitioner had extra marriatal affair and when the same was questioned, she was beaten and a complaint lodged, which would no way the petitioner's case of demand of dowry. The trial court, based on a matrimonial dispute which normally occurs in a family, on a wrong notion convicted the petitioner. In fact, during the trial, both the petitioner and his mother Mallika, were tried by the trial Court and mother acquitted from this case. He further submitted that the defacto complainant/PW1 had filed a maintenance case in MC No.4 of 2021, wherein, there was a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto complainant before the trial and having agreed for the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, she also undertaken not to pursue the above case.

¶28

3. But on the contrary, today she appeared and submitted that the compromise arrived at by her with the petitioner was not for this case. To produce copies of the petition and the compromise memo and also to show the payment of Rs.4 lakhs, she seeks a short accommodation.

¶29

4.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant/PW1 had filed the maintenance case, wherein, she received Rs.4 lakhs, out of which, the counsel who appeared

¶30

3/9

¶31

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

¶32

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶33

before the lower appellate Court had taken Rs.80,000/- towards fees

¶34

and the compromise was arrived at only in respect of the child, but

¶35

not for her. She is inclined to go for compromise, but so far, she not

¶36

entered into any compromise.

¶37

5.List on 04.12.2025.”

¶38

In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this

¶39

Court on 12.11.2025, today the learned counsel for the petitioner produced additional typed set of paper containing the orders passed in M.C.No.4 of 2021

¶40

and H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2021.

¶41

3.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the de-facto

¶42

complainant in this case filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.4 of 2021 before

¶43

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, in which, a compromise was arrived at

¶44

between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. The relevant portion of the

¶45

order reads as under:

¶46

tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;lnghJ mtuJ kidtpapd;;;;;; thH;f;if bghUSjtpf;fhf

¶47

4/9

¶48

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

¶49

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶50

xnu bjhifahf U:/4.00.000-?j;ij (U:gha;/ ehd;F yl;rk; kl;Lk;) bfhLg;gjhf Twp. kDjhuh; trk; U:/4.00.000-?k; bfhLj;jd; nghpy; nkw;go

¶51

vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhl;rpak; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L. ,t;tHf;F

¶52

Koj;Jf;bfhs;sg; gl;l epiyapy; kDjhuiu vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; FWf;F tprhuiz bra;a mDkjpf;fg;gl;L k/rh/1 U:/4.00.000-? j;ij kDjhuh; bgw;Wf;bfhz;ljhf xg;g[f;

¶53

bfhz;ljhy; ,Ujug;g[ rhl;rpaKk; Koj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gl;L.

¶54

,Ujug;g[ thj';fSk; nfl;fg;gl;L ,Wjpahf ,k;kD

¶55

kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;j Fwpg;ghizapd; go

¶56

gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

¶57

This would confirm that petitioner paid Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only).

¶58

Further referring to the order passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Myladuthurai in H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 submitted that the

¶59

de-facto complainant filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and also

¶60

making allegation that the petitioner having extra marital affair and through that

¶61

lady he is having two children. The Principal Sub-Court, Myladuthurai granted

¶62

divorce. He further submitted that initially a case was filed against the petitioner

¶63

5/9

¶64

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

¶65

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶66

and his mother in C.C.No.35 of 2011. The trial Court by the judgment dated

¶67

01.02.2017 acquitted the petitioner’s mother. As regards the petitioner he was

¶68

acquitted for offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. but convicted for offence under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence. Aggrieved against his conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myladuthurai. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 25.02.2021 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the petitioner. He further submitted that now compromise arrived between the petitioner and de-facto complainant and the offences can be compounded.

¶69

Today, Ms.M.Ananthi, WHC 536, All Women Police Station, Sirkali

¶70

along the de-facto complainant/Mrs.Sheeba appeared before this Court. She confirms the compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant.

¶71

6/9

¶72

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

¶73

CRL RC No. 1661 of 2022

¶74

Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the

¶75

material, it is seen that the dispute is between the estranged husband and wife, who now got separated and leading their independent way of life as per their choice and the issue has been resolved. In view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, the de-facto complainant is

¶76

not interested to pursue the case and she condoned the act of the petitioner and

¶77

further it is primarily a matrimonial discord, now resolved, the offences under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of I.P.C. are compoundable.

¶78

In view of the above, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned

¶79

Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali in C .C .No.3 5 of 2011 dated 01.0 2.201 7 and confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myladuthurai

¶80

in Crl.A.No.03 of 2017 dated 2 5.02.2021 are set aside. The petitioner is

¶81

acquitted from all charges.

¶82