The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that the charge sheet filed against the petitioners merits quashing under Section 482 CrPC since the de-facto complainant had amicably settled the dispute and voluntarily expressed willingness to abandon the criminal prosecution.
Quashment of P.R.C.No.25 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2014 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Crl.O.P(MD)No.103 of 2014
1.Prabhu
2.Thavam 3.Sheik Abdullah : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
vs.
1.State represented through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub-Division, Melur, : Respondent1/Complainant (Crime No.90 of 2008 on the file of the Kottampatti Police Station)
2.Suresh : 2nd respondent/ De-facto complainant
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.25 of 2009 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Criminal side) For 2nd respondent : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 to quash the Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.25 of 2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3.The learned counsel appearing for both parties represented that the petitioners and the second respondent/de-facto complainant have amicably settled the issue between them and the de-facto complainant has agreed to give up the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and the de-facto complainant is no longer willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused persons.
4.On 31.01.2014, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent/de-facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant along with their respective counsel are present. When this court enquired the second respondent/de-facto complainant about the
2
factum of the compromise and terms of the compromise, he admitted the same and he has also categorically submitted that he is not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners/A1 to A3, due to compromise arrived at between them. A joint compromise memo has also been filed to that effect.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a unreported decision of this court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16694 of 2011, dated 14.08.2013 in the case of Davamani Christopher vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thallakulam (L & O), Madurai City and another, wherein it is held as follows:-
“11.In B.S.JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2003 SCC (Crl.) 848], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
12. In KULWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [2007(4) CTC 769] a Larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the principle laid down in B.S.JOSHI (supra) is not only applicable to matrimonial offences, but also applicable to other non-compoundable offences and held as under:- "21. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be a hostage to one class or category of cases. That would be a complete misconstruction of the intent of the Legislature, who placed its utmost faith in the inherent power of the High Court to break free the shackle of other provisions of the Code to give effect to any order under it or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The wide amplitude of this provision of law cannot be diminished by any myopic interpretation and any straight jacket prescription. Shri R.S.Cheema, learned Senior Advocate, who assisted the Bench as Amicus Curiae, highlighted the inadequacies of the criminal justice system in order to propound and promote the principle that under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court can effectively exercise its power in an appropriate case and intervene to quash an F.I.R. even when the case discloses a noncompoundable offence and where the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise....
24. The compromise, in a modern society, is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such
3
a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord- tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
25. ... Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex-debito Justitiate to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise inherent powers. It will always depend upon the fact and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
13. In NIKHIL MERCHANT Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER [JT 2008 (9) SC 192], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows : "22. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, the same has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been made compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with the leave of the Court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the compoundable offences, but
4
it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) becomes relevant.
6.It is now well settled that the proceedings can be quashed in appropriate cases on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Here is the case wherein the de-facto complainant in his own interest and on his own free will thought fit to compromise the matter with the petitioners/A1 to A3. That being so, this court is of the considered view that the de-facto complainant is not likely to support the prosecution case at later point of time during trial in respect of petitioners/A1 to A3. In that event, it is not going to help anyone by keeping the case on file and it would be only a futile exercise and it would be sheer waste of the time of the court. Hence, in order to maintain the present state of affairs, which is according to the parties more beneficial to them, this court is of the considered view that P.R.C.No.25 of 2009 is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A3.
7.In the result, this petition is allowed by quashing the P.R.C.No.25 of 2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur against the petitioners/A1 to A3. The joint compromise memo shall form part of the record.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CRL.)
\True copy\
Sub Assistant Registrar
To,
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub-Division, Melur,
2.The Government Advocate, (Criminal side) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.R.Karunanidhi, Advocate Sr.No.6867
Crl.O.P(MD)No.103 of 2014 03.02.2014
er
NA/17/02/2014/P4/4c
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a charge sheet can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when a compromise has been arrived at between the accused and the de-facto complainant.
Whether the existence of a settlement precludes the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.
Whether keeping a case on file after a compromise constitutes a waste of judicial time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2003 SCC (Crl.) 848]Relied on¶20
KULWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [2007(4) CTC 769]Relied on¶21
DAVAMANI CHRISTOPHER VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM (L & O), MADURAI CITY AND ANOTHERRelied on¶19
NIKHIL MERCHANT Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER [JT 2008 (9) SC 192]Referred¶26
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhu
Thavam
Sheik Abdullah
State
Suresh
G. Chockalingam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
