Logan v. The State Rep by Its,

ORDER The petitioners, who are the accused facing trial for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Page2 of 8 Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 had filed this petition seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.332 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District .

¶2The case against the petitioners is that on 30.05.2024, the petitioners A1 to A4 have forced L.W.2, Valliammal to go out of the home. The said Vailliammal is the mother of the first petitioner. When L.W.3, the brother of A1 and L.W.1, sister's son of Valliammal have questioned the same, there was a wordy quarrel between them. Hence, on a complaint, case registered and on conclusion of the investigation listing 10 witnesses and documents, charge sheet filed in this case.

¶3The contention of the petitioners is that the issue arises out of a family dispute between the petitioners and L.W.1 to L.W.3. It is submitted that the dispute led to heated arguments, push and pull which later exaggerated, culminating in the lodging of the present complaint. Now after intervention of family members, the issue resolved. Further, all of them are residing adjacent to each other, in one plot and the issue resolved amicably and in support of the same, they have filed a joint memo of compromise dated 11.02.2026 along with supporting affidavits before this Court. Page3 of 8

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent Police submits that it is a family dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. Based on the complaint given by L.W.1, a case registered and the investigation completed and charge sheet filed. He further submitted that the parties have now realised their mistakes, the complaint was exaggerated, and complaint lodged now all concern mutually decided to resolve the dispute amicably.

¶5The petitioners and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. Now that, the parties have compromised and filed a joint memo of compromise and the supporting affidavits along with this petition.

¶6On being enquired by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

¶7The joint memo of compromise dated 11.02.2026 filed by the petitioners and the second respondent is scanned and extracted hereunder: Page4 of 8 Page5 of 8 Page6 of 8 Page7 of 8 Page8 of 8

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. rap

¶8In view of the above joint memo of compromise, this Court is inclined to quash the Charge sheet on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District and accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.332 of 2025 is hereby quashed. 27-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rap To

¶1The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.OP No. 5037 of 2026 1. Logan 2. Yasotha 3. Siranjivi 4. Maran ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No.460 of 2024) 2. Gowthaman ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This criminal original petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.332 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District and Quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1