Allowed

N.Arun v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/1990/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court accepted a joint compromise memo and mediation agreement entered into between the parties to dissolve marriage and pay settlement sums, thereby quashing the criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.165/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tuticorin are quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

N.Arun Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1990 of 2017

¶6

N.Arun

¶7

:Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1. State Rep.by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thoothukudi District

¶9

Ms.Felshya Jansirani : Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C.No.165/2016 (On the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi) and quash the proceedings against the petitioners alone.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R1 : Mr.K.Saravanan for R2

¶12

ORDER

¶13

On the complaint lodged by Felsya Jansirani, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.13/2013 and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.165/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tuticorin for offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Arun (A1) and his family members, for quashing which, this petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶14

Today, Ms.A.Kanagabai, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin, is present. Arun and Felsya Jansirani are also present and they are identified by their respective counsel.

¶15

They have filed a joint compromise memo. They have also filed individual affidavits stating that the matter has been compromised. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ litigations before Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No.10112/2016, the parties were referred by this Court

¶16

¶17

(PNPJ) to the Mediation Centre, where, they have appeared to have entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 11.07.2016 on the following terms,

¶18

“Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure of coercion form any side have agreed as follows:

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

In the light of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.165/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tuticorin is hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

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

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi.

¶36

The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thoothukudi District

¶37

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

¶38

Madurai.

¶39

1 CC TO Mr.C.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 12988

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1990 of 2017 07.03.2017

¶43

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

N.Arun v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Arun 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

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

N.Arun Vs Ms.Felshyajansirani

A.Vairavapattar Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs S.Soundiraraj