Madras High Court
Mrs.Sandhiya vs The State Rep. By on 21 July, 2025
Crl.A.No.738 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.738 of 2017
Mrs.Sandhiya, Aged 30 Years,
Mr.Suresh, Ammanibhavan,
Mannarswamy Koil, Thindivanam,
Tamil Nadu.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. By,
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Tindivanam.
(Cr.No.6 of 2009)
2. Mr.Suresh
Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
against the judgment of aquittal dated 31.08.2016 made in Crl.A.No.18 of
2016 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thindivanam,
by allowing the Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram
For M/s.Nathan And Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr. L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
Crl.A.No.738 of 2017
Mr.C.Vigneswaran For R2
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2016
passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in
Crl.A.No.18 of 2016.
2. The second respondent was tried for the offences under Sections
294(b), 506(1) and 494 of the IPC, 1860 in C.C.No.415 of 2010 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam. The appellant is the
victim who lodged the FIR in Cr.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the first
respondent. The second respondent was convicted for the offence under
Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months. On appeal in Crl.A.No.18 of 2016, the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tinidvanam, acquitted the
second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this
Court.
3. While the appeal was pending before this Court, the parties viz., the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
appellant and the second respondent entered into a compromise and have
signed a Joint Compromise Memo. The Joint Compromise Memo dated
21.07.2025 is scanned and reproduced below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
4. Mrs. Sandhiya, the appellant was identified by her counsel
Mr.Leelesh Sundaram and had produced her Aadhar Card bearing No. 7405
3150 7121. To a specific query, she stated that she had entered into a
compromise with the second respondent and the contents of the compromise
memo, are true. She would also request the Court to dispose of the appeal in
terms of the compromise.
5. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and since
the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is compoundable, no useful
purpose would be served in adjudicating the case on merits. Hence, this
Court permits compounding of the offence. Accordingly, the Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
21.07.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : yes/no
ars
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tinidvanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
21.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 04:11:18 pm )
