Court held that since the parties settled the matter via a joint compromise memo signed 31.01.2018, quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2014 served no useful purpose and allowed the petitions.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi are quashed in respect of the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12494 and 15337 of 2014
and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 (In both petitions)
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12494 of 2014
1.Caroline Getsy 2.Selvin @ Charles ...Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 & 4
-Vs-
Alangulam,
Tirunelveli District.
(In Crime No.2 of 2012)
...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.R.Kiruba ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15337 of 2014
1.M.E.Michael 2.Packiathai Esra ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
-Vs-
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.R.Kiruba ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
2
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.
In both Crl.O.Ps:
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sundaresan For R-1 : Mr.O.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.S.Sukumar
*** COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original petitions have been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD) No.12494 of 2014 are accused Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15337 of 2014 are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.2 of 2012, on the file of the first respondent, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli District. The second respondent in both the petitions is the defacto complainant in the above said crime number.
4.The complaint in Crime No.2 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the first respondent police. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in the above said crime number. The first respondent has investigated the matter and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District against the accused.
5.It appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and second respondent in both the cases have already settled the matter before the Lok Adalath. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 31.01.2018, is also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent, in both the cases, has given her consent to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in respect of these petitioners.
6.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are
3
verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate through the first respondent police.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AE)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
(*)MEMO OF COMPROMISE XEROX COPY IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
+One cc to Mr.S.Sukumar, Advocate, SR.No.47162 +3 ccs to Mr.N.Sundaresan, Advocate, SR.No.47368 +2 ccs to Mr.N.Sundaresan, Advocate, SR.No.47369
vs RL/10C/3P/SV/MMS/SAR2/7/3/2018
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12494 and 15337 of 2014
07.02.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498(A) IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed upon filing of a joint compromise memo.
Caroline Getsy and Selvin @ Charles
M.E.Michael and Packiathai Esra
The State represented by its, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam
R.Kiruba
P.RAJAMANICKAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
