Allowed

Dhandapani v. State by

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CRL OP/2569/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Original Petition and quashed the criminal proceedings upon a joint compromise. The court declined to extract the divorce ratio from a Supreme Court case against the petitioners but invoked it to declare the marriage between the 4th petitioner and the 2nd respondent null and void, directing the police to issue non-traceable certificates for withheld documents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2023 quashed; married declared null and void; police directed to issue non-traceable certificates for educational documents.

Dhandapani Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1193 and 1194 of 2022

¶5

Dhandapani

¶6

Alamelu

¶7

Poonkothai

¶8

Murugaraj ... Petitioners Vs.

¶9

State by Inspector of Police, AWPS- Villupuram Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.19 of 2020)

¶10

Bhuvana ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceedings concerned in C.C.No.76 of 2021, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate -II,

¶12

Ulundhurpet, Villupuram District for the petitioners concerned.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Thiyagarajan For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Ms.Raji for Mr.S.Saravanakumar

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.76 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate -II, Ulundhurpet, Villupuram District.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing, both parties along with their respective counsel have appeared before this Court. Further, A Joint memo of compromised entered between the 4^th petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and also produced the joint memo of compromise. As per the compromise memo, the petitioners have paid a sum 5,00,000/- demand draft and Rs.1,80,000/- through cheque totally Rs.6,80,000/- to the second respondent. Further, the 4^th petitioner has agreed to transfer the name of the vehicle bearing Registration Number TN 32 BA 4888 to the

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶24

name of Anbazhagan or any other name. Both have agreed that they will not claim any money or any share or any property from each other in future.

¶25

Further, the grievance of the defacto complainant is that her Education certificates withhold by the 4^th petitioner/husband and in-laws and the same was denied by the 4^th petitioner stating that there is no educational certificate belongs to the defacto complainant viz., Bhuvana.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is directed the 1^st respondent police to issue non-traceable certificate immediately about missing the educational certificates viz, SSLC, HSC, Birth Certificate, Provisional Certificate, Course Completition Certificate, Transfer cum Conduct Certificate, statement of Marks(CBCS), Transfer Certificate, of the defacto complainant. Based on the NOC, the defacto complainant is entitled to get copy of the original certificates from the concerned authorities and the Concerned authorities as well as the Revenue authorities also directed to comply the

¶27

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶29

order passed by this Court in respect of issuing of Certificates belongs to her. Furthermore, as per the amicable settlement, the 2^nd second respondent herein agreed to join the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, at Ulundhurpet which was transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.236 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur.

¶30

Considering the above facts of the case, as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan reported in [ (2023 SCC online SC 544)] is extracted hereunder:-

¶31

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we decide this reference by answering the questions framed in the following manner:

¶32

(i) The scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶33

This question as to the power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is answered in terms of paragraphs 8 to 13, inter alia, holding that this Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, as long as the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy. While deciding

¶34

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶36

whether to exercise discretion, this Court must consider the substantive provisions as enacted and not ignore the same, albeit this Court acts as a problem solver by balancing out equities between the conflicting claims. This power is to be exercised in a ‘cause or matter’.

¶37

(iii) Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?

¶38

This question is also answered in the affirmative, inter alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing the dissolution is placed.

¶39

Further, there is no possibility of cohabitation by both parties.

¶40

Hence, the marriage between the 4 th petitioner and the second respondent is declared as null and void. Further, the parties are directed to produce the copy of this order to the Court for closure of the case.

¶41

7. Considering the joint memo of compromise filed by both parties, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial

¶42

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

¶43

5/6

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022

¶45

Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur, is quashed and the terms of joint memo of

¶46

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.,

¶47

msrm

¶48

compromise has been filed in the typed set of papers along with this petition, shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶49

27.03.2024 Speaking / Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index :Yes/No msrm

¶50

¶51

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur,

¶52

The Inspector of Police, AWPS- Villupuram Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶53

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.2569 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1193 ands 1194 of 2022 (½)

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

Dhandapani v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhandapani v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Kannadasan Vs Magizhvanan

N.v.Devi @ Devika Vs The Joint Director

Johny @ John Paulraj Vs State Rep by

C. Gopalan Vs P. Muthusamy

Priya Krishna Murthy Vs Mr.Manikandan

Kethishwaran Vs Union of India