The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings in a theatrical cruelty case upon filing of a joint compromise memo, invoking Section 482 CrPC and Supreme Court guidelines despite the offences being non-compoundable, ordering costs to the Environment Fund.
Proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2016 are quashed; Petitioners to pay Rs.500 each to Environment Fund.
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: 23.08.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3097 of 2018 and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2018
1.Prasanna
2.Lokesh :Petitioners/Accused No.4 & 5 Vs.
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.170 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate[Crl. side] For R-2 : Mr.R.Niresh Kumar
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Madurai District, for an alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC.
2 . The case is still in the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
3 . A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The parties were also present before the Court and they were identified by Mrs.S.Santhi, SI of Police and they have also produced the copies of the Aadhaar Card which are made part of the record. This Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
2
4 . Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2016.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Crl side)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II) ENCL: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo
To
+1cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate Sr.No.80303 gns
VB/RP/SAR2/03.10.2018/2P/6C
Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3097 of 2018 23.08.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC should be quashed upon filing of a compromise memo.
Whether Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction extends to quash investigations in non-compoundable offences due to settlement.
Whether a joint compromise memo validly signed by parties warrants quashing of criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶17
2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prasanna
Lokesh
The State
A.Dhanalakshmi
N Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
