Allowed

T.Alagarsamy v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRL OP/13406/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a police FIR registered under IPC sections 417, 420 and 406 arising from a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the Court allowed the section 482 CrPC petition upon satisfaction of an amicable settlement between the petitioner's son and the second respondent, even though the offences were non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.4 of 2020 pending with the Inspector of Police are quashed.

T.Alagarsamy Vs the State Rep.by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.13406 OF 2020
AND
CRL.M.P.NOS. 5203 AND 5204 OF 2020

¶6

1.T.Alagarsamy

¶7

2.A.Ulagammal

¶8

 ...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State, Rep. by its
 Inspector of Police,
 All Women Police Station,
 Tambaram.

¶11

2.S.Abinaya

¶12

 ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the record in
Crime No.4 of 2020 pending enquiry on the file of the 1st
respondent police and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.J.Kingsly Solomon

¶15

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Damodharan
 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

For Respondent No.2 : Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed to call for the record in
Crime No.4 of 2020 pending enquiry on the file of the 1st
respondent police and quash the same.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.02.2017 the
marriage between the petitioners' son viz., A.Jeganath and the
second respondent were solemnized as per the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, which was registered on 03.03.2017. All the marriage
expenses were borne by the petitioners' family and they had not

¶20

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

¶21

demanded any amount as Sreedhana. As both of them were working
in an IT Company at Chennai, they were living together at
Chennai. On 20.03.2018, the petitioners' son Jeganath and the
2nd respondent defacto complainant went to Tuticorin to visit
the parents of the second respondent, there was some matrimonial
dispute, she did not return back to the matrimonial home and
further the 2nd respondent's father abused the petitioners' son
with filthy language and derogatory remarks. In this regard, on
27.04.2018, the petitioners' son filed a petition in O.P.No. 346
of 2018 U/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the
marriage on the ground of cruelty before the Hon'ble Sub Court,
Tambaram, got offended, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint
before the Tambaram All Women Police Station on 23.06.2018 and
on receipt of the complaint, Cr.No.4 of 2020 registered, under
sections 417, 420 and 406 IPC. Further, she filed a petition in
D.V.C.No.37 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Tambaram and also H.M.O.P.No.592 of 2019 before the Sub-Court,
Tambaram.

¶22

3. The case is still at the stage of investigation. By
passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet
and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶23

4.An Affidavit dated 21.12.2020 and 09.08.2020 are filed
by the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant and her husband
respectively before this Court. The 2ndrespondent and
petitioners' son are present through Video conferencing. In the
affidavits, it is stated that the petitioners' son and the
second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably
settled their issues in Crime No.4 of 2020 and also with
regard to the matrimonial cases in H.M.O.P.Nos.346 of 2018, 592
of 2019 and D.V.C.No.37 of 2018. This Court enquired both the
parties, satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable
settlement between themselves.

¶24

5. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be
served in keeping the case 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),
and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and
Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the case
in Crime No. 4 of 2020., pending on the file of the first
respondent.

¶25

 6.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as
a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.4 of 2020., pending on
the file of the first respondent, is quashed and the terms of

¶26

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

¶27

affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

drm/sms

¶32

To

¶33

1.Inspector of Police,
 All Women Police Station,
 Tambaram.

¶34

2.The Public Prosecutor,
 High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to M/s.Kingsly Solomon, Advocate SR.No.52825

¶36

+1cc to Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar, Advocate SR.No.52584

¶37

CRL.O.P.No.13406 of 2020

¶38

SSD(CO)
RVM(02/11/2021)

¶39

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

T.Alagarsamy v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Alagarsamy v. the State Rep.by

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

Thangamani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.Hemalatha Vs N.Rajasekar

Sagunthala Vs State Rep.by

E.Tamilarasan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Ashokan @ Ashok Vs the State Rep.by

Arjunan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police