Allowed

K.Haribabu, M/54 Years v. M.Kulasekaran, M/60

Madras HC9 Nov 2017CRL OP/21783/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition sought to quash criminal proceedings originating from a domestic discord case where the parties had arrived at a mutually beneficial compromise witnessed by the filing of a compounding petition. The court reviewed the terms of the compromise and issued the order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.O.P and the prosecution in C.C.No.680 of 2013 are allowed and quashed respectively.

K.Haribabu, M/54 Years Vs M.Kulasekaran, M/60 — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P (MD) No.21783 of 2016

¶7

P.Navaneethan

¶8

Meena

¶9

R.Perumal

¶10

P.Revathi

¶11

R.T.Saravana Kumar @ Saravanan .. Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Theni

¶14

Theni District

¶15

2.Kohila ..Respondents/Complainant and Defacto Complainant

¶16

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.680 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the same.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.680 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

¶19

For the convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

¶20

¶21

P.Naveethan got married to Kohila on 25.03.2010 and they have a daughter Poorvika. On account of marriage discord they got estranged. Kohila filed a police complaint, based on which a case in all Women Police Station, Theni in Cr.No. 10 of 2013 was registered and after completing the investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.680 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate I, Theni against Naveethan and four others. During the pendency of this prosecution, the parties have arrived at a compromise wide Deed of Compromise dated 27.01.2016 wherein in Clause 8(a), it is stated as follows:

¶22

8(a) Her complaint in C.C.No.680 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Theni, a Charge Sheet filed by All Women Police Station, Theni against the above Revision Petitioners based on the complaint filed by the Respondent Kohila. Further Ms. Kohila undertakes to file compounding petition along with petitioners herein to withdraw the above said case either before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Theni or ensure her full co-operation for the quash petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench to be filed by the petitioners herein. Also, the Respondent Kohila gave her no objection for withdrawing the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Revision petitioners which has been deposited by them before the Learned Judicial Magistrate at No.1 at Thena in compliance of the condition imposed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras of Madurai Bench in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8087 of 2013 while enlarging them on Anticipatory Bail.'

¶23

Therefore, the accused filed Crl.O.P.No.21783 of 2016 before the Madurai Bench for quashing the prosecution. On the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the same has been transferred to this Court.

¶24

In view of the above compromise arrived at between the parties, Crl.O.P.No.21783 of 2016 stands allowed and the prosecution in C.C.No.680 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Theni against all the accused stands quashed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Theni 2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Theni, Theni District 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104.

¶30

+1 cc to M/s.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate Sr.No. 81247

¶31

AKM/25.10.19/3P-5C /

¶32

Crl.O.P (MD) No.21783 of 2016

K.Haribabu, M/54 Years v. M.Kulasekaran, M/60

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Haribabu, M/54 Years v. M.Kulasekaran, M/60

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

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, Vs v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, Vs v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

M/S.First Techno Services Pvt. Vs P.v.Achuthan

K.Muthusamy M/65 Years Vs S.K.Parthasarathy M/58 Years

State Represented by Vs Chinnadurai, M/A-36/2010

P.Somasundaram, Vs a.Vasanthamani