Allowed

Thropathaiammal, F/65/2015 v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/13597/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows Criminal Original Petitions filed for offences under the IPC related to a property sale dispute. The Madurai High Court applied Section 482 CrPC and the Gian Singh ruling to quash proceedings based on a joint compromise memo signed by the complainant and petitioners, noting the civil nature of the family dispute despite the initial failure of a third-party purchaser to sign.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petitions and connected Miscellaneous Petition are allowed, and criminal proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2015 are quashed.

Thropathaiammal, F/65/2015 Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13597 &13588 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.13588 of 2015

¶7

In Crl.O.P(MD).No.13597 of 2015: 1.Thropathaiammal 2.Rajendran ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. (in Crime No. 46 of 2015) 2. Rajeshwari ... Respondents In Crl.O.P(MD).No.13588 of 2015: Kandhi Alagiri ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. (in Crime No. 46 of 2015) 2. Rajeshwari ... Respondents

¶8

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accepting the compromise memo and quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13597 of 2015 : Mr.V.Chitra Pandi For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13588 of 2015 : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam For M/s.S.Mohan Kumar For Respondent-1 in both cases : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent-2 in both cases : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13597 of 2015 has been filed by the A1&A2 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13588 of 2015 has been filed by A4 in Crime No. 46 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 410 and 506(i) of IPC.

¶13

The defacto complainant is none other than the daughter-in-law of A1 and A2 is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. A3 is the power of attorney holder who sold the property on behalf of the members of the family including A1, A2 and the deceased husband of the defacto complainant, in favour of A-4 in the year 2008. He is also reported dead.

¶14

The sum and substance of the allegation is that the sale deed has been effected by showing the sons of A1 as minors, though they were majors at the relevant point of time. The complaint has been given on 04.03.2015 and registered on 11.07.2015. Apparently, it has been given after the death of the husband of the defacto complainant. Incidentally she has also filed a suit in O.S.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court No.II, Madurai against A1 and A2 covering larger extent of properties. She has averred in the said suit that she is entitled for a share being the heir of her deceased husband, in the suit properties mentioned thereunder.

¶15

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, a joint compromise memo has been filed on behalf of the parties duly signed by them and attested by their counsels. The following paragraph of the said compromise memo would be apposite;

¶16

“ek;kpy; 2tJ ghh;l;oapy; 1tJ egh; rptuf;nfhl;il fpuhkk; rh;nt vz;/171/17Cy; 16 brz;Lk; rh;nt vz;.171/17D1y; 9 brz;Lk; Mf bkhj;jk; 25 brz;L epyj;ij jah irgh; ghh;f; gpiuntl; ypkpbll;od; eph;thf ,af;Feh; fhe;jp mHfphp mth;fSf;F jdJ gth; Vb$z;l; K:yk; 03/04/2008k; njjp (Mtz vz;.2868/2008) tpw;gid bra;Js;shh;/ nkw;go tpw;gid Mtzj;ij ehk; ,U ghh;l;oahUk; Vw;Wf;bfhz;Ltpl;nlhk;. me;j epyk; tpw;gid bra;jJ rk;ge;jkhf ek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;oahh;fSk; jw;nghJ Vw;Wf;bfhz;Ltpl;lgoahy; ek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;oahh; vLj;Js;s midj;J rl;l eltof;ifiaa [k ; thg!; bgw;Wf;bfhz;Ltpl;L uhrpahfp tpl;lhh;/”

¶17

In pursuant to the compromise memo, a compromise agreement has been filed between A1 and A2 on the one hand and the defacto complainant on the other hand dated 14.07.2015 wherein it has been stated that the defacto complainant has stated that the parties would honour the sale deed dated 03.04.2008 executed in favour of A4.

¶18

Regarding the other properties, the compromise agreement also deals with A1 and A2 and defacto complainant. Accordingly, it was further resolved that proper orders would be obtained by the parties based upon the said compromise memo.

¶19

Both the counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant namely R-2 submitted that in view of the said compromise memo filed as well as the compromise agreement entered into, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings. The parties who are present before the court especially R-2 being the defacto complainant also reiterate the same.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The execution of the compromise memo and agreement are not in

¶22

¶23

dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made reliance upon the judgement made in the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another ((2012) 10 SCC 303) and submitted that considering the nature of dispute being both civil and family, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings.

¶24

However, basing reliance upon the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation would reveal a prima facie case and A4 has not signed in the compromise agreement and she is not present before the court today. Therefore no indulgence will have to be shown.

¶25

A perusal of the complaint would certainly show a civil flavour. A4 is only a purchaser in the year 2008. Primarily the dispute has arisen between the family members. When the sale was effected, the defacto complainant's husband was fully alive. The complaint has been lodged after nearly five years. The compromise memo indicates the un-willingness on the part of the defacto complainant to proceed further. While recording the settlement entered into, it is not necessary that A4 will have to be a party by the compromise agreement, since the defacto complainant has given up the right over the property, that is 25 cents of land. It is she, who initiated the civil suit. It is also seen that it is A3 who sold the property through a power deed in favour of A4. It also appears that A4 has taken possession of the property and thereafter put up construction.

¶26

Considering the same, this court is of the view that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgement in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another ((2012) 10 SCC 303) would apply to the case on hand. Therefore this court is inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, the District Crime Branch, Madurai.

¶27

Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

sd/Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

PJL To

¶31

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.

¶32

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +one cc to Mr. S.Mohan kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 39318

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CSL/29.07.2015 3P/4C

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13597 &13588 of 2015and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.13588 of 2015 16.07.2015

Thropathaiammal, F/65/2015 v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thropathaiammal, F/65/2015 v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.v.Sobhana Bai Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Raman @ Thenarasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

A. Bhuvaneshwaran Vs K. Muniyandi

M. Venkatesh Vs D. Indra

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Alias Vs the Deputy Superintendent of