The Madurai Bench quashed a criminal FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute involving non-compoundable offences after the parties successfully compromised the matter and filed a joint memo of settlement.
Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. 20 of 2021 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.14873 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
... Petitioners Vs
... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No. 20 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.Ramnath B,
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, (R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
M/s. D.Venkatesh (R2)
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
First Information Report in Crime No.20 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police.
dispute, the defacto complainant was harassed and threatened by the accused persons. Hence this present case.
3 . When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.20 of 2021, dated 19.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act against the petitioners.
4. The case is still under the investigation. By passage of
time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
dispute amicably among themselves.
5 . A Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 04.09.2024, has
been filed before this Court, which has been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Ms.S.Pushpakani, SI of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, Trichy District, 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. The defacto complainant has got divorce from the first petitioner.
6 . In the instant case, there is a matrimonial dispute between
the parties and now the parties had compromised their disputes. Where the parties have compromised the matter, the High Court has power to quash the complaint for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
7 . The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of
Gujarat) 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.20 of 2021, pending before the first 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.20 of 2021, 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.
20.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PNM
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
To
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PNM
Order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14873 of 2024
20.12.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether High Court has power to quash FIR in matrimonial disputes upon amicable compromise even if offences are non-compoundable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶40
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of GujaratReferred¶41
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat) reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arunkumar
Manokar
Neela
State Represented By Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jeeyapuram, Trichy District
Navamani
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
