ORDER : M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. The petitioner/accused in Spl.S.C.No.77 of 2025 facing trial for the offence under Sections 29(b), 323, 384, 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(c)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act filed this quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, a resident of Adaiyur Village, Tiruvannamalai District belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar Scheduled Caste community, the petitioners 1 to 3 residing in Vannur, Villupuram District and the petitioners 4 and 5 are residing at Lawspet, Puducherry. The defacto complainant, a M.Sc (Maths) graduate employed as Mathematics Teacher in TVS Academy School, Adaiyur Village for three years prior to 2020. She frequently visits Ramanashram, Tiruvannamalai. During one such visit in the month of March 2020 the petitioner met the defacto complainant and introduced him as Sakthi, hailing from Vanur, Villupuram running a Travels business at Auroville. The defacto complainant informed the first petitioner not to engage such talks with her and she left the place. During the month of April 2020, the first petitioner went to the School to drop a parent and saw the defacto complainant, again spoke with her and collected her phone number. On 10.04.2020, the first petitioner informed the defacto complainant of his intention to marry her. The defacto complainant refused the proposal and informed petitioner that she belonged to Scheduled Caste community, whereas the first petitioner belonged to the Vanniyar, Most Backward Community, and will not be accepted by her family. She also informed not to disturb her. But they continued to remain in contact. Subsequently, when the defacto complainant’s father arranged marriage for her with one Ilayaraja, a Government School Teacher, the defacto complainant unwilling for the marriage, consumed Lizol cleaning acid and she was rushed to the hospital and saved. Thereafter, on 10.02.2022 the fourth petitioner called the defacto complainant and asked her to come home, believing her words, the complainant went to Kuyilapalayam without informing her parents. On 11.02.2022, marriage arranged between the defacto complainant and first petitioner at Manakula Vinayagar Temple, Puducherry and marriage was registered at Cuddalore on 12.02.2022. Thereafter, on 10.02.2022 the fourth petitioner called the defacto complainant and asked her to come home, believing her words, the complainant went to Kuyilapalayam without informing her parents. On 11.02.2022, marriage arranged between the defacto complainant and first petitioner at Manakula Vinayagar Temple, Puducherry and marriage was registered at Cuddalore on 12.02.2022. 3.Initially, the defacto complainant’s parents were shocked on coming to know about the marriage and later, they accepted the reality and arranged a reception at Hotel Vijay Park, Tiruvannamalai, on 21.02.2022, at that time, expected Sridhana articles could not be presented and promised that Sridhana articles would be given after a month. On 23.02.2022, the first petitioner called the victim's parents and demanded Sridhana articles, thereafter trouble started. One month after the marriage, the defacti complainant found that the petitioners' family was more focused on wealth and on her earnings and not treated her with love and affection. She was humiliated citing her social status. She was locked inside a room and prevented from speaking with others. When the defacto complainant earlier called her parents and informed about humiliation, they pacified but later her mobile phone was snatched and damaged by the petitioner. Thereafter, second mobile phone was given to her by victim’s mother, which was also damaged on the allegation that she was informing her parents about the harassment. The petitioners took the defacto complainant forcibly in a car, removed her Thali and pushed her out of the car and left the place. Thereafter, complaint lodged, FIR registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 13 witnesses and the case is now at the trial stage. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even going by the uncontroverted statement of the defacto complainant, it is seen that the victim and the first petitioner were in love with each other, they knew each others social status and having conscious relationship. It was the victim's father who made arrangement for marriage of the victim with one Ilayaraja, a Government School Teacher and it was a forcible marriage. The victim not interested in the marriage consumed Lizol acid, she was admitted in the Hospital and saved. Thereafter, the defacto complainant called the fourth petitioners, sister of first petitioner to save her. Till such time she not informed her parents about her love affair with the first petitioner. The victim not interested in the marriage consumed Lizol acid, she was admitted in the Hospital and saved. Thereafter, the defacto complainant called the fourth petitioners, sister of first petitioner to save her. Till such time she not informed her parents about her love affair with the first petitioner. He further submitted that in this case even at the initial stage, the victim had apprehension of intercaste marriage, thereafter the same was sorted out and after gaining confidence she continued her relationship with the first petitioner and the petitioners aware about the victim's social status and it is the petitioners who took the victim to temple in Puducherry and marriage was performed. Thereafter, they registered their marriage with SRO, Cuddalore and both the first petitioner and the victim were living happily together. The victim later developed some difference of opinion in the new environment and started abusing and harassing the first petitioner. The petitioners reprimand the victim and later the victim on her own left the matrimonial home. The first petitioner filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No.93 of 2024, which was later transferred by orders of this Court and now pending before the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai as HMOP.No.6 of 2025.. The defacto complainant also filed a Domestic Violence case before the Judicial Magistrate/Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai in DVC No. 31 of 2022. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was referred for mediation. During mediation, both parties agreed to resolve the issue amicably and give quietus to all the cases pending between them, mutual divorce to be obtained and DVC case also to be withdrawn by the victim. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant is a M.Sc Mathematics graduate and she was lured by the first petitioner on the promise that there will not be any objection in his family with regard to her social status and he had been in constant touch with the victim and later the victim on the assurance of the first petitioner went to the petitioners’ house and the family members of the first petitioner agreed for the marriage finding that the victim employed in Government School having good income and first petitioner was doing business but not successful, hence marriage will beneficial to him. Later dispute arose only when the defacto complainant was unwilling to share her salary and insisted upon financial independence and she was continuously humiliated on the basis of her caste and subjected to harassment. Earlier complaint was lodged, the petitioners were called to the Police Station and they gave an undertaking that they would treat her properly and there will not be any harassment or humiliation. On returning home, the mobile phone of the victim was snatched and damaged. Thereafter another mobile phone was given by the victim’s mother which was also broken and again humiliation started. Finally finding that the victim being an independent person not budging to the demand and terms of the petitioners’ family, she was forcibly taken in a car, brought to Tiruvannamalai and pushed out from the car. Later, victim informed the Police and case registered, statement of victim, her parents and others recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 13 witnesses. He further submitted that the victim has now expressed willingness not to proceed with the case and is willing to withdraw the complaint. 6.Both parties appeared before the Court and jointly filed memo of compromise. A scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 7.In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in Spl.S.C.No77 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial Cases under SC/ST Act (POA), Tiruvannamalai is quashed against petitioners and all are discharged from all charges.