CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 and Crl.M.p.Nos.12075 and 12076 of 2026 1. Ajithkumar S/o.Veerabathran, No.EWSA 642, Gandhi Managar, Peelamedu Coimbatore. 2. Veerapathiran S/o.Koodalingam, D.No.EWSA 642, Gandhi Managar, Peelamedu Coimbatore. 3. Sumathi S/o.Veerapathiran, D.No.EWSA 642, Gandhi Managar, Peelamedu Coimbatore. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore.Crime No.676/2025 2. Banumathi W/o.Ramachandran, EWSA, 642, Gandhi Managar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records and QUASH the Impugned Final Report in CC.No.1455/2026 on the file of the learned J.M Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore and pass any other orders deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus and thus render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Vikram For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate ORDER The prayer is made to quash the final report in Cc No.1455 of 2025 on the file of the learned J.M Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. 2. Upon considering the material records of the case and the gist of the allegations it is seen that the accused and the defacto complainant are neighbours. The water i.e poured by the accused on the common wall used to get into the house of the defacto complainant and was stagnating. It is alleged that merely because the defacto complainant questioned the accused to repair the same, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also assaulted her resulting in simple injuries and also threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that firstly the petitioners sold the house and moved away. Except for the said boundary dispute between the parties with reference to the property the case is embellished as a criminal case. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 5. It can be seen that for the injury the Accident Register copy is also on record and Doctor who treated the defacto complainant was also examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material to proceed the case against the petitioner. However, considering the submission made by the petitioner that there is a likely hood of settlement as the petitioners are moving away, the learned Judge, Trial Court is directed to refer the parties to the mediation in this case. 6. In view thereof the prayer in the Criminal Original petition to quash the CC stands negatived. The Trial Court is directed to refer the parties to the mediation centre and if there is any settlement it will always be open for the parties even to approach this Court if necessary 7. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 13-07-2026 SMN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To. 1. The learned J.M Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore 2. The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. SMN CRL OP No. 18089 of 2026 and Crl.M.p.Nos.12075 and 12076 of 2026 13-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis