Allowed

Sathyasudhan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/1105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed a charge sheet and final report under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the petitioners and respondent-wife had amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, transferred jewels, paid alimony, and agreed to dissolve the marriage via mutual consent.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the final report filed in C.C.No.2678 of 2019 under various IPC sections and the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.

Sathyasudhan Vs The Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.[MD]Nos.501 & 502 of 2020

1.Sathyasudhan

2.Krishnan

3.Radha

4.Sathiya Tharani ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. Crime No.10 of 2018 ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.S.P.Nivethavarthani ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.2678 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Trichy and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. For R2 : Mr.R.Narayanan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report filed in C.C.No. 2678 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Trichy.

¶16

2 . When the matter came up for hearing on 23.03.2022, this Court has passed the following order:

¶17

“This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.2678 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Trichy.

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020

¶21

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.03.2022, both the parties viz., the first petitioner and the defacto complainant were present and this Court, after hearing both sides, directed the first petitioner to handover 35 sovereigns of jewels to the defact complainant, which was the main grievance of the defacto complainant/wife.

¶22

3. Today, the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are present. The first petitioner has brought 27.6875 sovereigns of jewels, which were said to have been given by the parents of the defacto complainant at the time of marriage.

¶23

4. It is stated that though originally 35 sovereigns of jewels have been given, now it is the contention of the first petitioner that only 27.6875 sovereigns is available with him and the remaining sovereigns adjusted against the Mangalyam provided to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is also agreed for the same.

¶24

5. The jewels weighing about 27.6875 sovereigns have been handed over to the defacto complainant.

¶25

6. Now both the parties are willing to settle the matter amicably, after arriving at a settlement with regard to permanent alimony. In order to facilitate such settlement Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned counsel is appointed as Mediator for effecting settlement between the parties. Both parties are directed to appear before the Mediator.

¶26

3 . Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, the parties viz., husband and wife were appeared before the Mediator and entered a settlement. The Mediation Report has also been filed before this Court. The first petitioner herein agreed to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) to the second respondent, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) has already been paid on 19.04.2022 and they have also agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent before the Family Court, Trichy.

¶27

4. As the entire dispute, which resulted in filing of final report under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i), 294(b), 354A(i)(ii), 355, 406 IPC and Sections 6 and 3(1) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising out of the matrimonial dispute, the husband and wife have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

2/4

¶29

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020

¶30

settled their dispute among themselves and arrived at a settlement, this Court is of the view that continuing the prosecution is nothing but a futile exercise.

¶31

5 . Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report filed against the petitioners in C.C.No.2678 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila Court), Trichy is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Mediation Report shall form part of this order.

¶32

6 . The first petitioner and the second respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the Mediator towards remuneration.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶37

VSM

¶38

Enclose copy of Mediation report. To 1.The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to The Director, Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶39

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

¶40

3/4

¶41

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020

¶42

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.1105 of 2020 28.04.2022

¶43

+1 CC to M/s.A. JOEL PAUL ANTONY, Advocate ( SR-22040[F] dated 28/04/2022 )

¶44

+1 CC to M/s.T.BANUMATHY, Advocate ( SR-22325[F] dated 28/04/2022 )

¶45

RK(16/05/2022) 4P 8C

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

Sathyasudhan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyasudhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath Rohini Vs R.Shyamala

Duraivel Rajan Vs R. Shyamala

V.S.Pandi Vs P.Chellapandian

R.N.Jagadeesan Vs M/s.Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

J.Kavitha Vs R.Ramkumar

Mudasher Basha Vs a.Thiyagarajan