Allowed

Clara v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Oct 2023CRL OP(MD)/11180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. The Court held that since the disputes between the married parties were amicably settled via a joint compromise memo and alimony was paid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Consequently, all proceedings in the respective crimes we

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowed; entire proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police quashed; terms of joint compromise memo recorded as part of the order.

Clara Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7049 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9712 of 2023

¶7

1.Clara

¶8

2.Kumaresan ...Petitioner / Accused No.2,3 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11180 of 2022 A.S.Ayyanar ...Petitioner / Accused No.1 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State Rep. by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai. ...1^st Respondent / Complainant (in both cases)

¶11

2.M.Saranya ...2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant (in both cases)

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of 1^st respondent police and quash and pass such further other orders of this Court.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) : Mr.Rahim Sikkandar for R2

¶18

(in both cases)

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

¶21

2.The contention of the petitioners is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC against the petitioners.

¶22

3.The further contention of the petitioners is that they compromised the issue with the 2^nd respondent amicably. A joint memo of compromise was filed, which has been duly signed by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent and also by their respective counsels.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶26

The defacto complainant and the first petitioner present before this Court and stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties by which a permanent alimony of Rs.4,50,000/- was settled. Already a sum of Rs.2,50,000/was received by the defacto complainant and now a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been given to the defacto complainant in the form of a Demand Draft inrespect of the matrimonial issue which is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai. They have decided to resolve the issue by separated mutually.

¶27

The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels and also produced their Aadhar cards. They were also identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶28

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also in view of the joint compromise memo, dated 30.08.2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶32

purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police is quashed and the compromise memo is recorded.

¶33

In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2022, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent police is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

13.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶35

pnn

¶36

¶37

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai.

¶38

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

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶42

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

¶43

pnn

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11180 of 2022 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.12372 of 2023

¶45

13.10.2023

¶46

5/5

¶47

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

Clara v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Clara v. The Sub 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

Surya Vs The Inspector of Police

B.Vignesh Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Kumaresan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Joyson Vs The Inspector of Police

Soundarya Vs The Superintendent of Police

Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police