Criminal Original Petition filed to quash charge sheet. Court quashed proceedings as parties amicably compromised despite non-compoundable offences, citing Supreme Court guidelines.
Proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2021 quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned; petitioner to pay Rs.5,000 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(MD)No.8184 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8184 of 2022
M.Manickam ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur,
Madurai District. (Cr.No.12 of 2019) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.xxxxx,
xxxxx, xxxxxx, Madurai. ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records connected with the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the District Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the District Mahila Court, Madurai.
2 .The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
1/3
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8184 of 2022
3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel.
4 .Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending before the respondent police. 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 @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the District Mahila Court, Madurai.
5. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the District Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB , Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172) on or before 08.05.2022 and the receipt of payment shall be produced before the concerned Court, failing which the order shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.
vsd
Enclose copy of Joint Compromise Memo. 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.
To
1.The Judge,
District Mahila Court, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Samayanallur, Madurai District.
2/3
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8184 of 2022
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Copy to The Finance Secretary (CMPRF), Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009. RK(02/05/2022) 3P 5C
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8184 of 2022 28.04.2022
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon filing of a compromise memo between parties in a non-compoundable case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathExplained¶4
2017 9 SCC 641 (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Manickam
State through The Inspector of Police
xxxxx
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
