Karunanithi vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Arumbavur Police Station — 344/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 320(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPB020008402026

Filing Number

757/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

344/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court-Jm level)

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 320(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Karunanithi

    Adv. K. KALIYAPERUMAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Arumbavur Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur dismissed the compromise petition filed by the accused Karnanithi under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The court held that the offences alleged—Sections 294(b), 324, 326 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act—are non-compoundable in nature, and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to permit compounding. The court directed that the proper remedy for the parties is to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings based on compromise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court-Jm level)

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 344/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur dismissed the compromise petition filed by the accused Karnanithi under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The court held that the offences alleged—Sections 294(b), 324, 326 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act—are non-compoundable in nature, and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to permit compounding. The court directed that the proper remedy for the parties is to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings based on compromise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case