Allowed

L.S.Soundhara Rajan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/6754/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash an FIR involving Sections 120(b), 498-A, 420, 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court quashed the proceedings based on a recorded compromise memo and mutual settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in F.I.R in Crime No.7 of 2019 are quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.

L.S.Soundhara Rajan Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

¶2

[BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

¶7

L.S.Soundhara Rajan ... Petitioner / accused No.1

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State rep. by

¶10

The Inspector of Police,

¶11

All Women Police Station,

¶12

Thiruparamkundram,

¶13

Madurai City. Crime No.7 of 2019. ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.A.K.Chithrashoba ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto complainant

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of F.I.R in Crime No.7 of 2019, dated 25.04.2019 and to quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajapandian For R1 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Venkatesan for Right Law Associates

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R in in Crime No.7 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent.

¶21

2.The contention of the petitioner is that based on the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.7 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 498-A, 420, 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dory Prohibition Act, against the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

4.The issue between the husband and wife and the matter resolved and they mutually separated, in pursuance of the above said permanent Alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-. The above said Alimony was paid and received. It has been agreed that the property-house stand in the name of the child, for which, transfer document was also executed by the accused. On the basis of the above said terms, compromise has been reached between the parties.

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

¶27

The petitioner 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 Government Advocate (Crl Side) and the Investigation Officer. Both the parties were enquired by me and they accepted the terms of compromise. Hence, the Joint Compromise Memo is recorded.

¶28

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the compromise memo, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash the F.I.R in in Crime No.7 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent, in respect of the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the entire proceedings in F.I.R in in Crime No.7 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner alone. The compromise memo is recorded and the terms of compromise memo shall form part of this order.

¶30

13.06.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Ls

¶32

3/4

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

G.ILANGOVAN, J.,

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparamkundram,

¶38

Madurai City.

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2023

¶41

13.06.2023

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

L.S.Soundhara Rajan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.S.Soundhara Rajan 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

Chandramohan N Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ravichandran @ Dhanish Ravichandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Musthafa Vs The Inspector of Police

Jhansirani @ Jhansi Mary Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Kannappa Vs The Superintendent of Police

N.Chiraimeettan Vs The Superintendent of Police