Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings regarding a personal domestic dispute. A joint compromise memo was filed and verified by the Court. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings against petitioners.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.84 of 2021 quashed as against petitioners.
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.2068 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
1.Raja
2.Karnan
3.Balamurugan
4.Mariyammal ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.
2.Pandiyammal ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.84 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Manikandan
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Dhanaraj
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.84 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the defacto complainant's husband, one Kandavel got married to one Kushbu. Due to the quarrel between them, Kushbu consumed poison on 12.08.2020, for which, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked her and threatened her with dire consequences.
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1668 of 2020 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.84 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act against the petitioners
4.The case is under trial. 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 also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and and they were identified by Mr.A.Muthukrishnan, Head Constable-394, Vadipatti Police Station as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court also 3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
6.In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.
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 C.C.No.84 of 2021 as against the petitioners pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
proceedings in C.C.No.84 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, is quashed as against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order.
01.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns
To
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
gns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2023
01.03.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of criminal proceedings is appropriate in a personal dispute settled by a Joint Memo of Compromise.
Whether High Court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences upon amicable settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and anotherReferred¶32
(2012)10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujrathReferred¶32
(2017)9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Raja
Karnan
Balamurugan
Mariyammal
The State
Pandiyammal
K.MURALI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
