Allowed

Arunchenthil v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/4593/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute. The parties entered into a joint memo compounding the dispute, agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, and mutually agreed not to prosecute each other. The Court held that continuing the prosecution was a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Final report in C.C.No.79 of 2019 is quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Arunchenthil Vs The Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4593 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR CRL.O.P.[MD].No.4593 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.[MD]Nos.2597 & 2598 of 2020

¶6

1.Arunchenthil

¶7

2.Nageswari@Nagu

¶8

3.Rengammal

¶9

4.Sabarish

¶10

5.Maharaja Pillai

¶11

... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 6 Vs.

¶12

6.Perumalpillai

¶13

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagercoil. Crime No.23 of 2018

¶14

Crime No.23 of 2018 ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.Janapriya ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, Kanyakumari District, quash the same as against these petitioners.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate. For R2 : Mr.P.Veerapandi

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report filed in C.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, Kanyakumari District.

¶19

When the matter came up for hearing on 06.04.2022, the defacto complainant / 2^nd respondent and the first petitioner were present and they were agreed to settle the matter after exchange of certain property. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today.

¶20

Today, the husband and the defacto complainant viz., the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are present and they have filed a joint memo of compromise. Further, both of them have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and also agreed

¶21

1/2

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4593 of 2020

¶23

not to prosecute against each others in future. The said Joint memo of compromise filed by the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is recorded and taken on file.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that, as the entire issue is only the matrimonial dispute and both parties have settled the issues amongst themselves, continuing the prosecution against the husband and his family members is nothing but a futile exercise, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report filed against the petitioners in C.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, Kanyakumari District. is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

VSM

¶31

¶32

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, Kanyakumari District.

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagercoil.

¶34

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶35

+3 CC to M/s.N. MOHINDEE BASHA, Advocate ( SR-19832[F] dated 20/04/2022 )

¶36

CRL.O.P.[MD].No.4593 of 2020 20.04.2022

¶37

SVS(CO) KB(09.05.2022) 2P 7C

¶38

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

¶39

2/2

Arunchenthil v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunchenthil 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

T. Lawrence Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Sabinammal Vs the District Collector

S. Sonaimuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Saravanan Vs The Public Prosecutor

ArunKumar, Vs The Inspector of Police

ArunKumar, Vs The Inspector of Police