V.Panner v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.By,

ORDER The prayer in the Criminal Original Petition is to quash PRC No.180 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram, on compromise Page2 of 4

¶2Upon examination, the wife of the deceased who was present in Court submitted that the case be quashed on compromise and that she doesn't want to pursue the case further. On a perusal of the final report, it can be seen that it is taken on file for the offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) & 306 of IPC. Since serious offences are alleged, this Court will not go as per the version of the prosecutrix alone and the entire gamut of facts have to be taken into account. Even it is now submitted that by way of compromise, the accused has given an option to the de faco complainant to repurchase the property on the current market value and they have also agreed with the same. With reference to the amount due also, there is an amicable settlement. In view of the same, they are praying for quash.

¶3Even though serious offences such as abetting to suicide, cannot be quashed merely on compromise, upon going through the First Information Report and the statements recorded during the investigation and the final report, the allegation is that the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by mortgaging the property to the accused and even though they have repaid a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- and were paying interest, when they approached the accused for redeeming the property, the accused is said to have alleged that already the property has been registered in his favour and that he will not give back the property and used filthy language. On account of which, he was in grave mental disturbance and, thereafter he has committed suicide. Therefore, it can be seen Page3 of 4 that an extreme steps has been taken by the husband of the de facto complainant on account of the transactions.

¶4The incident happened on 18.01.2024 and he consumed poison on

27.01.2024 and thereafter, died on 08.02.2024. The same is also kept in the background. The fact that the petitioner doesn't want to proceed with the case and there will be no chance of meaningful trial is also kept in the background. There is no other antecedents for the petitioner/Accused.

¶5For all the above reasons, I am of the view that this is on the special and peculiar case where this Court can excise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.2421 of 2026 is allowed. The final report and all further proceedings in PRC No.180 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Viluppuram stands quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-07-2026 KKN Page4 of 4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. KKN To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 14-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Crl.M.P.No.1610 of 2026 V.Panner, S/o.Veerappan, No.398, Mariyamman Koil Street, Vellakulam, Sernthanur Village, Villupuram Taluk & District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by, Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District. (Cr.No.163/2024) 2. Rani, W/o.Arumugam, Perumal Koil Street, Sernthanur Village, Villupuram Taluk & District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records of PRC.No.180 of 2025, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram, and to quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S. Natarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.R.Ponraj for R2