The High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner/accused following a settlement and filing of a joint compromise memo by the parties, finding no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending.
All proceedings in C.C.No.399 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, are quashed.
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.(MD)No.15699 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15699 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6945 & 6946 of 2018
Abraham ... Petitioner/ Sole Accused
vs.
2.William Fernandas ... Respondent/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.399 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) for R1 Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R2
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.399 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.
2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused had married Belgena Mary Stella sister of the second respondent/de-facto complainant and the third respondent/victim Vimala Rani in the compromise memo is the wife of the second respondent. It is also not in dispute that there existed property dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that second respondent has lodged a complainant for the incident alleged to have occurred on 29.06.2014, and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.110 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 294(b), 452 and 506(ii) IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15699 of 2018
3.The first respondent after completing the investigation has laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the said offences and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.399 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.At the instance of the elders of the second respondent's family, they have arranged for a meeting so as to explore the possibility of the settlement that the petitioner and the second respondent had taken part and entered into settlement and that in consequent to the settlement, the second respondent has agreed to file compromise memo before this Court.
5.In pursuance of the said compromise, they have filed a joint memo of compromise along with the affidavit of the second respondent. In the affidavit, the second respondent has specifically stated that the settlement has come to the existence on their own and there has been no case of causing influence and therefore, he had already undertaken to appear before this Court for reaffirming his stand with regard to the compromise. The petitioner, the second respondent/ de-facto complainant and second respondent's wife/victim are present before this Court and they were identified by their counsels as well as by the first respondent police. On enquiry by this Court, the parties have accepted the settlement arrived at between them and filing of compromise memo jointly. Considering the above, the compromise memo is recorded.
6.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and consequently, filed joint memo of compromise before this Court and the same was recorded, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Consequently, all the proceedings in C.C.No.399 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District, are quashed.
7.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
2/3
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15699 of 2018
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. Encl : Compromise Memo
To : 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Ayukudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15699 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6945 & 6946 of 2018
14.12.2021
USK (28.12.2021) 3P 4C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed upon filing of a joint compromise memo in case involving matrimonial and property dispute.
Validity of settlement reached between the accused and the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abraham
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ayukudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District
William Fernandas
K.Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
