High Court of Madras allowed a criminal original petition quashing a charge sheet based on a joint compromise memo filed by parties accused in offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Charge sheet in C.C.No.31 of 2013 quashed in toto.
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: 20.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2018
1.S.Saravanan
2.Subburaman 3.Chellam ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3
-Vs-
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to accept Joint Compromise Memo and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.side) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to accept the Joint Compromise Memo and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District pursuant to the compromise arrived at by the parties.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.6 of 2012. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, against the petitioners, the case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2012, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Sections 498-A, 406, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken
2
on file in C.C.No.31 of 2013, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
4.It appears that on the advice of friends and elders, the parties have entered into compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
5.The parties have appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) through the first respondent police.
6.Having regard to the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, the charge sheet in C.C.No.31 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo
To
CP
TE/KKR/SAR-3 : 14/03/2018 : 2P/6C
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2018
20.02.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed upon receipt of a joint compromise memo signed by the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Saravanan and ors.
State represented by The Inspector of Police
Mullaikodi
P. Rajamanickam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
