The High Court quashed C.C.No.26 of 2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after parties reached an amicable compromise, disregarding the non-compoundable nature of offences in light of Supreme Court guidelines.
Proceedings in C.C.No.26 of 2021 quashed; terms of compromise enforced; petitioners to pay Rs.5000/- each as costs.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.3462 of 2021
and Crl MP No.2012 of 2021
1. Ramesh Metha
2. Siva Metha
3. Sarath Raj Madhan .. Petitioners/
Accused 1 to 3
Vs.
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station,
Virugambakkam, Chennai 92 ..1 st respondent/ Complainant
2. L.Viswanathan .. 2 nd Respondent/Defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in C.C.No.26 of 2021 pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai 15.
For Petitioner : Mr.Geeta Ramaseshan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate M/s.M.R.Sangeetha for R2
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
2 Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2021
pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.26 of 2021, pending on the file of
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and quash the same.
parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
been filed by the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant before this Court. The
petitioners and the second respondent were also present through Video conferencing and they were identified by Mrs.Bharathi, Sub-Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai 92 . In the joint Memo, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in C.C.No.26 of 2021. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
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 @
3 Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2021
Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme 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
C.C.No.26 of 2021, pending on the file of learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.
proceedings in C.C.No.26 of 2021, pending on the file of learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, is quashed and the terms of Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each as costs, to the credit of President, Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157) , within a period of one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.03.2021
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rka
Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2021
4
To
Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2021
5
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. rka
Crl.O.P No.3462 of 2021
24.03.2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be quashed upon amicable compromise despite non-compoundable offences.
What is the effect of a joint memorandum of compromise on pending criminal proceedings exercisable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathFollowed¶22
2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @) · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and AnotherFollowed¶25
(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Metha
Siva Metha
Sarath Raj Madhan
The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station
L.Viswanathan
N ANAND VENKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
N ANAND VENKATESH
Parties & counsel
