High Court Bench allowed Criminal Original Petition to quash FIR in Sections 498(A) IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act cases. Court relied on compromise and Supreme Court guidelines granting quash.
First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2017 quashed and proceedings set aside; terms of Joint Memo of Compromise incorporated.
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: 10.08.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3597 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.[MD].No.1712 of 2018
All Women Police Station,
2.Muthulakhsmi : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings F.I.R. in relating to the Crime No.16 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Anandkumar For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate [Criminal Side] For R-2 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police, for an alleged offences under Section 498(A) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
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.
2
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 petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Ms.Subha, Head Constable of Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
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 First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2017.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) Encl: Xerox copy of Joint Compromise Memo
To
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3
SJI
VB/KAK/SAR1/03.09.2018/3P/8C
Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3597 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.[MD].No.1712 of 2018 10.08.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite the offences being non-compoundable due to a compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathRelied on¶26
2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramachandran
Irugovel
Aathimoolam
Thangaprema
Saravanaperumal
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station
N.Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
