Disposed

Sanjitha v. Jeeva

Madras HC15 Nov 2023CRL OP/17200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from matrimonial disputes. The court observed that the complainants and petitioners had executed a joint compromise memo and agreed to withdraw complaints, directing the petitioners to seek dismissal of the proceedings in the trial court pursuant to this settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mettur Dam, to seek dismissal of the complaints pursuant to the compromise memo.

Sanjitha Vs Jeeva — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 15.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023 and Crl. MP. Nos.11084, 11088, 11281 & 11283 of 2023

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.17200 of 2023 Sanjitha

... Petitioner -vs-

Jeeva

...Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No.129 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Mettur dam for an offence under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Crl.OP. No.17383 of 2023

¶13

1.Sanjitha 2.Nagesh 3.Mathammal

... Petitioners

-vs-

Arumugham

...Respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Page No.1/4

¶20

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023

¶21

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No.208 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Mettur dam for an offence under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Arun Kumar in both Crl.O.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.M.Selvam in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

The two private complaints are filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C arising out

¶25

of matrimonial dispute in C.C. Nos. 129 & 208 of 2019.

¶26

2. The petitioner/Sanjitha is the wife of one Ashwin Kumar. The defacto

¶27

complainant is the father in law/Arumugham in C.C. No.208 of 2019 and the mother in law/Jeeva in C.C. No.129 of 2019. The quash petition is filed on the premise that while taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial Court has not even mentioned, what is the offence made out in the complaint and under what Section or Penal provision, the petitioners have to face the trial.

¶28

3. Pending quash petition, it is now brought to the notice of this Court

¶29

that the complainant Arumugham and Jeeva have entered into settlement and joint compromise memo has been signed by this petitioners and complainants and husband of the petitioner/Sanjitha viz., Ashwinkumar. Parties have agreed to withdraw the respective complaints, pending against each other in the

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Page No.2/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023

¶33

domestic violence complaint initiated by the petitioners which is pending before

¶34

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Court at Mettur Dam in DVC No.05 of 2019. The memo has been recorded and the complaint initiated by the petitioner herein has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 26.09.2023.

¶35

4. These two Calendar Cases, which are pending based on the private complaint have to face the same fate in view of the joint compromise memo and therefore, without adverting to the merits of the quash petitions, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur Dam and seek for dismissal of the complaints, pursuant to the compromise memo entered between the parties.

¶36

5. With this directions, this Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

15.11.2023

¶38

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Page No.3/4

¶41

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023

¶42

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶43

rkp

¶44

¶45

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur dam.

¶46

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

¶47

Crl.O.P.Nos.17200 & 17383 of 2023 and Crl. MP. Nos.11084, 11088, 11281 & 11283 of 2023

¶48

15.11.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/4

Sanjitha v. Jeeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjitha v. Jeeva

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

G.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Manivannan Vs the State Rep by, Its

Senthamarai Vs the State Rep by Its

D.Sandhiya Vs The Director General of Police

R. Ranganayagi Vs State Rep.by

B.Karunanithi, Vs Chemplast Sanmar Limited Mettur Dam Rep. by Its Vice President (Personal)