Court allowed petition to quash FIR under Sections 376, 323, and 506(i) IPC. Based on Apex Court guidelines, proceedings were quashed as parties reached an amicable compromise to bury the hatchet in a family dispute.
FIR in Crime No.110 of 2019 filed by the second respondent against the petitioners was quashed.
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.1672 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
1.Alaguraja 2.Amaravathi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Kottampatti, Madurai District. (Crime No.110 of 2021)
2.Ramya ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records to the First Information Report in Crime No.110 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Vadivelan
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.T.Prabhu
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records to the First Information Report in Crime No.110 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other for more than five years and they had physical relationship on many occasion. Thereafter, the first petitioner went abroad for work. After returning from abroad, the first petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant and also threatened her with dire consequences.
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
4.The case is still under the investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
5.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and
3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.R.Jeyanthan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
7.The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
8.In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings in Crime No.110 of 2019 pending before the first
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
respondent police, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.110 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
02.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns
To
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
gns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1672 of 2023
02.03.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court has power to quash FIR in non-compoundable offences upon amicable settlement in a family dispute.
Whether the petitioner's marriage to the complainant resolves the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and anotherExplained¶32
(2012)10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathExplained¶32
(2017)9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alaguraja
Amaravathi
Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station
Ramya
K. Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
