Allowed

Chithiraimuthu, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Madras HC26 Jun 2015CRL OP/6883/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered for offences of cruelty and dowry harassment. The Court recorded a mutual compromise and consent divorce between the parties, relying on their filed Joint Memo, and consequently allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2013 was quashed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Chithiraimuthu, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 26.06.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.OP.No.6883 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

1.Chithiraimuthu 2.Sundarapandi Nadar

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

¶11

1.State rep.by The Inspector of Police, W-31, All Women Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.

¶12

Karthika Rohini ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.3 of 2013 dated 20.05.2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners :Mr.M.Santhana Raman

¶15

For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶17

ORDER

¶18

¶19

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime

¶20

No.3 of 2013 dated 20.05.2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent and perused the material placed on record.

¶22

3.On a complaint lodged by Karthika Rohini, the

¶23

respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2013 for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against her husband Chithiraimuthu (A1) and her father-in-law Sundarapandi Nadar (A2). It is seen that the defacto complainant got married to A1 on 16.09.2011 and thereafter, their marriage ran into rough weather.

¶24

4.Now, the parties appear to have arrived at a compromise and therefore, they have approached this Court for quashing the FIR.

¶25

¶26

5.Today, the accused and the defacto complainant are

¶27

present before this Court and they were identified by Ms.S.Suganthi, W-Grade-I-20804, W-31 All Women Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. They have also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise, wherein they have stated as follows:

¶28

“2.It is submitted that in view of

¶29

mutual consent divorce initiated by both the

¶30

parties and the same is pending on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Thoothukudi, in HMOP No.253 of 2014 and in pursuant to

¶31

written mutual compromise dated 06.06.2015, both the parties agreed to resolve the dispute amicably and further agreed to withdraw their respective cases.

¶32

In the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the settlement arrived in Crime No.3 of 2013 dated 20.05.2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-31 All Women Police Station,

¶33

¶34

St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, and permit the

¶35

petitioners to compound the offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently, quash the abovesaid FIR and thus render justice.”

¶36

Recording the above, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶37

allowed and the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-31 All Women Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

26.06.2015

mps

1.The Inspector of Police, W-31, All Women Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.

¶42

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH,J,

mps

Crl.OP.No.6883 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶47

26.06.2015

Chithiraimuthu, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chithiraimuthu, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Giridharan Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.a.J.Mohamed Meera Sahib Vs State by

Sanjeev Narula Vs the Inspector of Police

E.Kesavarthini Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Jayavelu Vs State Rep. by