Allowed

N.Arun v. Ms.Felshyajansirani

Madras HC7 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/10859/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash DV proceedings. Court allowed petition based on affidavit showing parties entered mediated settlement agreement to dissolve marriage and settle mutual disputes, closing connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in M.C.No.24/2013 before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi. Connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2015 is closed.

N.Arun Vs Ms.Felshyajansirani — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.10859 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

¶7

1.N.Arun 2.S.Natarajan 3.N.Tamilarasi

¶8

: Petitioners/Respondents

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Ms.Felshya Jansirani : Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in M.C.No.24/2013 (On the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and quash the proceedings.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthalraj

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Felshya Jansirani initiated proceedings in M.C.No.24/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, NO.I, Tuticorin against N.Arun and his family members under the Domestic Violence Act, for quashing which, this petition has been filed by Arun and others on various grounds.

¶15

During the pendency of this quash application, it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise and therefore, the case is not decided on merits, but on the fact that the petitioners have arrived at a compromise.

¶16

Arun and Felshya Jansirani are present and they are identified by their respective counsel. Felshya Jansirani has filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein, she has stated that in connected proceedings in Chennai, the parties were referred to Mediation Centre, in connected litigations before Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No.10112/2016, the parties were referred by this Court (PNPJ) to the Mediation Centre, where, they have appeared to have entered into a memorandum of agreement dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

11.07.2016 on the following terms:

¶18

“Both sides, out of their own volition and without

¶19

¶20

any pressure of coercion form any side have agreed as follows:

¶21

That the 1^st Petitioner namely Felshya janasirani and the respondent have agreed mutually settle dispute between among themselves and also agreed to dissolve the marriage.

¶22

The Respondent Mr.N.Arun is willing to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) in ful and final settlement, for which the 1^st Petitioner has given the consent thereon.

¶23

The Petitioners 2 and 5 are only added parties and co-accused, who are not the necessary parties to sign this agreement since the dispute is amicably settled among the 1^st Respondent.

¶24

The 1^st Petitioner has to withdraw immediately the case Nos. M.C.No.9/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Thoothukudi and M.C.. No.24/2013 before judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and Cr.No.13/2013 before the all Women Police Station(AWPS), Thoothukudi.

¶25

Both the parties agreed to not press inH.M.O.P.No.346/2014 before III Additional Sub Court, Madurai file a petition to dissolve the marriage before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶26

The Respondent Mr.N.Arun paying by way of D.D.No.001431 dated 08.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) drawn in favour of 1^st Petitioner which has been acknowledged by 1^st Petitioner.

¶27

The Respondent Mr.N.Arun has to file a petition in C.C.No.594/2015 before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, immediate on getting the dissolved marriage.

¶28

The balance amount is payable Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) on 25.07.2016.”

¶29

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C.No.24/2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Thoothukudi is hereby quashed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

¶36

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi

¶37

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

- 1 CC TO Mr.C.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 12989

¶39

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.MUTHALRAJ, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 12901

¶40

¶41

TE/SKN-RSK : 17/04/2017 : 3P/5C

¶42

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10859 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

¶43

07.03.2017

¶44

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

N.Arun v. Ms.Felshyajansirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Arun v. Ms.Felshyajansirani

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

Chinnapillai Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindarajan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

A.Vairavapattar Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs S.Soundiraraj

N.Arun Vs the Inspector of Police