Madras High Court
N.Karthikeyan vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 November, 2025
CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.1851 & 1853 of 2024
N.Karthikeyan, ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Crime No.274 of 2016..
2. Umathangam, ... Respondents
PRAYER :- This Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the
records and quash all further proceedings as against the Petitioners herein
in PRC.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial
Magistrate Level),Dindigul District, for offences U/s.498(A) and
306 IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan,
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
: Mr.A.Sivasubramanian for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm )
CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the final report filed for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC.
2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that due to matrimonial differences between the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner's wife, who was one of the victims in this case, had committed suicide; that thereafter the victim came and lived in the House of the second respondent and her husband, who is the other victim in this case;
that thereafter the petitioner is said to have scolded his wife and goaded her saying that she could “go and die”; that thereafter, the second respondent's husband and her daughter had gone to a secluded place in a car and they committed suicide by injecting Thiopentone, which induces anesthesia. It is further alleged that the second respondent's husband, who is a Doctor, who had first administered the injection to the petitioner's wife and thereafter administered it to himself.
2/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm ) CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide; that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had committed cruelty of such a kind that the victims had no other option except to commit suicide; that there were matrimonial differences and it is the case of the petitioner's wife that the petitioner was impotent and admittedly, the petitioner's wife was living away from the petitioner for four months prior to the incident.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the said allegations are false and in any case, the parties have now arrived at a compromise and the party, namely the second respondent, who is the only witness to speak about the alleged cruelty, has arrived at at a compromise and there is no other material in the impugned final report to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent have now entered into a compromise and decided to give a quietus to the entire 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm ) CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024 dispute. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo dated 22.10.2025.
6. The petitioner and the second respondent are present in person.
They are identified by Mr.A.Lawrence, SSI, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.
7. Considering the fact that even on merits it is hard to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and the fact that the second respondent, who is the only witness to speak about the alleged cruelty, has now entered into a compromise, 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 is quashed.
8. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 22.10.2025 shall form part and parcel of the order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul District, and file a photocopy 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm ) CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024 of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance before the Registry. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.11.2025 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order LS /ARS TO
1. The Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Director, The District Legal Service Authority, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
5/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm ) CRL OP(MD). No.2408 of 2024 SUNDER MOHAN,J LS/ARS CRL OP(MD) No.2408 of 2024 05.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:26 pm )