Allowed

Manavalan Angelo Jude v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/3261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted against four accused persons for offences under Sections 294(b), 355, 344, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, observing that a joint compromise memo dated 14.03.2017 confirmed a settlement between the parties, and the return of

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.228 of 2013 and closure of connected miscellaneous petitions based on the joint compromise memo.

Manavalan Angelo Jude Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3261 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

1.Manavalan Angelo Jude 2.Lakshmi 3.Micheal Raj 4.Mariya Joseph Raj

¶8

: Petitioners/Accused -vs-

¶9

1.The State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.80 of 2013). :1^st Respondent/Complainant.

¶10

2.Anitha Jayarani :2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant.

¶11

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings in C.C.No.228 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2013 and after completion of investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.228 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, for offences under Sections 294(b), 355, 344, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused, challenging which, the accused are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before this Court for quashing the prosecution on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶16

¶17

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Natarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station is present in Court. The defacto complainant is present and the petitioners are also present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Natarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station.

¶18

The petitioners and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo dated 14.03.2017, in which, it has been stated as follows:

¶19

"4. It is submitted that the petitioners filed quash petition before this Hon'ble Court in Crl.O.P.No.3261 of 2013 and the same is pending. Now the petitioners and the respondent No.2 settled their dispute in amicable manner before family elders and relatives.

¶20

That the petitioners and the defacto complainant settled their dispute in amicable manner. Therefore the defacto complainant does not want to proceed with the case further against the petitioners, in that effect the petitioners and the defacto complainant are jointly submitting this compromise memo before this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

Therefore, the petitioners and the defacto complainant most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this joint compromise memo submitted by the petitioners and the defacto complainant and pass appropriate order and thus render justice."

¶22

It is admitted by both parties that the property purchased in the name of the wife, but, it was in the possession of the husband, has been restored to the wife.

¶23

In view of the joint memo of compromise dated 14.03.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.228 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, in respect of all the accused, are hereby quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The

¶26

¶27

joint compromise memo dated 14.03.2017 shall form part of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

Herewith Joint Compromise Memo xerox copy was attached

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi.

¶33

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶34

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

¶35

+1CC to M/S.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No. 16416

¶36

+1CC to M/S.N. Ananthapadmanaban, Advocate, SR.No. 16440

¶37

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3261 of 2014 Dated: 20.03.2017

¶38

SML

¶39

AM/SKN RSK/SAR-4/03.04.2017/3P/6C

¶40

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

Manavalan Angelo Jude v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manavalan Angelo Jude v. the Sub 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

Pillathigur Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs the Superintendnet of Police

M.Meera Mohideen, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Lakshamanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Suriyakumar, Vs State, Rep. by

Mariyappan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu