Quashed

Pandi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/3509/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed Crime No.4 of 2015 involving matrimonial offences after parties reconciled. While the petitions were for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court used Section 482 Cr.P.C. to close petitions due to settlement.

What did the court decide?

The case in Crime No.4 of 2015 was quashed, which closed both Criminal Original Petitions filed for anticipatory bail.

Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.3509 & 3401 of 2015

¶6

PANDI

¶7

SIVAJANAKI CHANDRAN PERIYADEVI

¶8

..1 TO 4 PETITIONERS/ACCUSED in CRL OP(MD)No.3509 of 2015

¶9

MUTHURAMALINGAM ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

in CRL OP(MD)No.3401 of 2015

¶11

Vs.

¶12

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶13

CRIME NO. 4 OF 2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶14

For Petitioner : M/S.M.SUBASH BABU Advocate in both the petitions

¶15

For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Government Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶16

in both the petitions

¶17

For Intervenor : M/S.SENTHIL IYYANAR Advocate in both petitions

¶18

PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

COMMON ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶20

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 406,323, 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.4 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the Intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

¶22

When the matters camp up for hearing on 26.02.2015 and 27.02.2015, this court granted interim anticipatory bail to all the petitioners with a direction to them to appear before the respondent police for two weeks.

¶23

On 12.03.2015, when the matters were listed for hearing, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are likely to amicably settle their dispute and reunite. Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail was extended till 26.03.2015.

¶24

Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, Muthuramalingam (A1)/petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.3401 of 2015 and Kanu Amudham (defacto Complainant) appeared before this court with their respective counsels. They represented that they have rejoined on account of the efforts of elders and the counsels.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.This Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, learned counsel for the defacto complainant for brining about rapprochement

¶26

between the parties and making them to reunite.

¶27

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on instructions from the respondent police, who is present today, submitted that the parties have valuntarily arrived at a settlement and have decided to resume their matrimonial life afresh.

¶28

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners and the defacto complainant made a joint request to quash the case in Crime No.4 of 2015 by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58. Muthuramalingam (A1)/petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.3401 of 2015 and Kanu Amudham (defacto Complainant) also filed individual affidavits, stating that they have resolved their disputes and have rejoined. They also prayed for quashing the FIR in Crime NO.4 of 2015.

¶29

This Court, in order to satisfy itself, questioned Muthuramalingam (A1)/petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.3401 of 2015 and Kanu Amudham (defacto Complainant) individually and was satisfied that they have decided to bury the hatchet and start a new leaf of matrimonial life.

¶30

Normally, this Court will not exercise the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.PC, since the subject allotted to this Court is to deal only with the applications filed under sections 438 and 439 Cr.PC. However, in a case of this nature, it will not only be travesty of justice, but would also lead to unnecessary multiplication of litigations, if the parties are once again directed to file another petition under Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶31

Therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, referred to above, exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC., the case in Crime No.4 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police is hereby quashed. In view of quashing of the case in Crime No.4 of 2015, both the Criminal Original Petitions are closed.

sd/-

26/03/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶36

TO 1 THE JIUDICIAL MAGISATRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI

¶37