Dismissed

Shehu Umar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 417, 376, and 313 IPC. The court held that allegations involving forcible intercourse and causing abortion do not constitute a fit case for quashing on compromise grounds. The trial must proceed to a logical conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete trial within one week of receipt of order, and subsequently within five months thereafter.

Shehu Umar Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 15/06/2023

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶5

Crl.OP(MD)No.437 of 2023

¶6

Shehu Umar : Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

¶9

(In Crime No.02 of 2022) : R1/Complainant

¶10

2.Samema Banu : R2/De-facto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: - Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in PRC No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram and quash the same and to pass such further orders or other suitable orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran

¶13

For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶14

For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Vijayan

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

This criminal original petition has been filed

¶18

seeking quashment of the case in PRC No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.

¶19

2. The facts in brief :-

¶20

The de-factco complainant and the sole accused

¶21

namely Shehu Umar were living each other for about 5 years. That was not accepted by the parents. So, they arranged some other bride groom for the de-facto complainant. It was intimated to the accused by the defacto complainant. Both of them decided to join together.

¶22

On 18/06/2021, the de-facto complainant left the parental home and started living with the accused in Dindigul. On

¶23

20/06/2021, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. So, became pregnant. When

¶24

that was again intimated to the accused, he promised to perform marriage. He also gave tablets to her and because

¶25

of that, abortion occurred. Later, she was taken to one Women Hostel, where she was left. After that, the accused

¶26

did not contact the de-facto complainant. On the basis

¶27

of the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.02 of 2022 was registered for the offences under sections 417,

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

376 and 313 IPC. After completing the investigation, final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in PRC No.20 of 2022 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1,

¶31

Ramanathapuram.

¶32

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is compromise between the parties.

¶33

4.Both were present before this court and the court made enquiry with both of them. At that time, the de-facto complainant stated that she wanted to marry some other boy and now, she does not want to continue the issue. But in the joint compromise memo, nothing has been stated with regard to the point.

¶34

5.Now whatever it may be, the question arises for consideration is whether in the case of allegation of forcible sexual intercourse, on the false promise of marriage, criminal proceedings can be quashed in view of the compromise reached between the parties.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not a case of forcible affair, both of them are majors and it was consensual between them.

¶38

7.No doubt that the de-facto complainant does not

¶39

want to continue the prosecution. But the offence of such nature should not be permitted to be compounded, simply because, the de-facto complainant does not want to continue the prosecution. Even, if it is a private affair between the accused and the de-facto complainant, since there is an allegation to the effect that abortion was also caused by this petitioner by way of giving some tablets, I am of the considered view that this is not the fittest case to exercise the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. So, I am not convincing that the compromise

¶40

that was reached between the parties is sufficient to quash the proceedings. The trial must be taken to its logical conclusion. There shall be a direction to the committal court to complete the process within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After completing the trial process is over, the concerned trial court is directed to complete the trial process within a period of five months thereafter.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

8.With the above said direction, this criminal

¶44

original petition stands dismissed.

¶45

15/06/2023

¶46

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶47

¶48

To,

¶49

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.

¶50

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

¶51

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

¶52

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

G.ILANGOVAN, J

Crl.OP(MD)No.437 of 2023

¶57

15/06/2023

¶58

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

Shehu Umar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shehu Umar v. The 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

Veerapandiyan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Usha Vijayakumar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

H.Sheemah Vs The Commissioner

M.Suresh Vs The Commissioner of Police

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police