Allowed

Jayalakshmi, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/1795/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed criminal proceedings under sections 376, 506(i), and 417 of the IPC in an alleged rape case after the parties amicably compromised. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the Court allowed the petition, ordered the filing of a joint compromise memo, and imposed costs on the petitioners for secured payment to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. No. 4 of 2019 quashed; petitioners to pay Rs. 50,000 to complainant and costs, with terms of compromise forming part of the order subject to strict compliance by 22.11.2019.

Jayalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1795 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1795 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos. 970 & 971 of 2019

¶7

Jayalakshmi

¶8

Ravi

¶9

Anitha ... Petitioners/A2 to A4 Vs. 1. The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, Madurai City. (Crime No. 19 of 2017) ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2. Soniya ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records bearing S.C. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaleer Neethimandram, Madurai and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Jegadeesh Pandian For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R-2 : Mr.M.Karunanithi

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of S.C. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaleer Neethimandram, Madurai, for an alleged offences under Sections 376, 506(i) & 417 of IPC.

¶14

2 . The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶15

3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent were also present in person before this Court and they

¶16

1/3

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1795 of 2019

¶18

were identified by the police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶19

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 S.C. No. 4 of 2019.

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in S.C. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaleer Neethimandram, Madurai, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry) and also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand Only) to the second respondent and file a photocopy of the receipt along with the memo reporting compliance before the Registry/1^st respondent and the trial court on or before 22.11.2019, failing which, this order automatically stands cancelled without further reference to this Court and the trial court can proceed with the trial in S.C. No. 4 of 2019. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

Ksa

¶24

Encl:Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise Memo. To

¶25

The Additional District and Sessions Court, Mahaleer Neethimandram, Madeira.

¶26

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, Madurai City.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1795 of 2019

¶31

Copy to: The Section Officer, Accounts Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc Mr.M.JEGADEESHPANDIAN ,Advocate, SR.No. 96913 Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1795 of 2019 07.11.2019

¶32

KK/SAR/21.11.2019/3P-6C/

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

Jayalakshmi, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Nandakumar Vs Abraham Mathew

K.Poongathai, Vs D.Selvaraj

A.Sankareswari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Ananntha Srinivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

Raj Narayanan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

asan hasali Vs The Inspector of Police