Allowed

Rajendran, Aged 67 Years, v. Iswarya

Madras HC2 Mar 2021CRL OP/5179/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal original petitions seeking to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC involving domestic violence and criminal charges. The Court found that a compromise had been reached with the wife, leading to the withdrawal of proceedings, and issued a rule to quash the same to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal original petitions were allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2016 and C.C.No.62 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur, were quashed.

Rajendran, Aged 67 Years, Vs Iswarya — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.O.P Nos.5179 and 24594 of 2017 and

¶6

Crl.MP.Nos.7182,7181, 14219, 14220, 3834 and 3934 of 2017

¶7

1.Rajendran
2.Meenal ...Petitioners/Respondents 3 & 2
in Crl.OP.No.5179/2017
.vs.
Iswarya ...Respondent/Petitioner
in Crl.OP.No.5179/2017
1.Naga Ganesh
2.Meenal
3.Rajendhiran ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
in Crl.OP.No.24594/2017
.vs.
1.State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur. ..1 st Respondent/Complainant
in Crl.OP.No.25494 of 2017
2.Iyaswariya ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant
in Crl.OP.No.24594/2017

¶8

PRAYER in Crl.OP.No.5179 of 2017 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records for the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2016, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, quash the said proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶9

PRAYER in Crl.OP.No.24597 of 2017 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records for the records relating to C.C.No.62 of 2017, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, quash the said proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah (in Both Crl.OPs)

¶11

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

¶12

For Respondent : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi (Crl.OP.No.5179/2017)

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz (Crl.OP.No.24597/2017) Additional Public Prosecutor for R 1

¶14

Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi for R 2

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2016 and C.C.No.62 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

3.This Court after considering the fact that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties, referred the matter to Mediation for arriving at an amicable settlement by an order dated 04.12.2017.

¶19

4.Pursuant to the above order, the parties have arrived at a compromise and a joint memo of compromise entered into between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, has been filed before this Court. It is clear from the joint memo of compromise that the 2nd respondent has agreed to withdraw all the proceedings against the petitioners. The joint memo of compromise dt.11.11.2019, entered into between the parties shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶20

**Pursuant to the above terms, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the articles have been handed over to the wife and the custody of the Child was also handed over to the first petitioner (husband). For reason best known to the 2^nd respondent, she suddenly wants to change her counsel and she was not present before this Court. All the petitioners are present before this Court.

¶21

6.In view of the above development, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending and the same will amount to an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, both the criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2016 and C.C.No.62 of 2017, on the file of

¶22

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

¶23

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

(*) Copy of Joint Memo of Compromise entered into between the Petitioners and the 2^nd Respondent herewith enclosed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS.VII) Dated: 15/03/2021

¶27

** Corrected as per order of this
Court dated 22/04/2021 in
Crl OP. 5179 & 24594/2017
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III)
Dated: 11/05/2021
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Ariyalur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras

¶28

+2cc to Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, Advocate SR.NO.13082
+1cc to Mr.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate, S.R.No. 2414

¶29

CRL.O.P Nos.5179 and 24594 of 2017

¶30

GPL(CO) AKM/16.03.21/ 3P- 6C/ GN(12/05/2021)

¶31

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

Rajendran, Aged 67 Years, v. Iswarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran, Aged 67 Years, v. Iswarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vijayakumar Vs The Tahsildar

V.Goutham Vs State, Represented by

K.Gopalsamy Vs M/S. Trk Textiles India Private Limited Company, Rep.by Its

M.Sudhir Moni, M/36 Vs State Rep. by

Ameen Shah, M/a 55 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.R.Manikandan Vs G.Balasubramaniam